Published: October 13, 2025
MONROVIA — Liberia’s procurement chief, Bodger Scott Johnson, is facing mounting scrutiny after admitting at a Ministry of Information press briefing last Thursday that he joined Vice President Jeremiah Koung’s delegation to China to “observe” companies linked to the government’s ongoing plan to buy 285 earth-moving machines.
Johnson insists his participation was lawful and “strictly observational,” but procurement experts and a review of Liberia’s Public Procurement and Concessions Act (PPCA) suggest otherwise. They say his presence on the delegation undermines the independence of the very regulatory body he leads and may breach both the letter and spirit of the procurement law.
“We weren’t there to make decisions on who wins the bid and who didn’t,” Johnson told reporters at the MICAT regular press briefing. “To maintain integrity and transparency, we served as invited observers. We had no voting rights.”
He added that President Joseph Nyuma Boakai had set up a special committee, chaired by the vice president, to oversee the procurement process, and that the PPCC’s involvement was merely to provide “technical advice” as part of the committee’s due diligence.
A Conflicted Role
But Johnson’s own agency had earlier confirmed to The Liberian Investigator that the procurement process for the machines, popularly called “yellow machines,” was already underway, and that the PPCC had approved the Ministry of Public Works’ procurement plan under the Restricted Bidding Method.
In June, when The Liberian Investigator posed written questions to the PPCC, the commission responded that the Ministry’s procurement plan “was approved using the Restricted Bidding Method, consistent with Sections 50 and 51 of the PPCA.” The response further noted that the PPCC’s role was to ensure “straight adherence to the Act” and achieve “transparency, accountability, fairness, and best value for money.”
Asked at the time whether Johnson’s presence in the vice president’s delegation to China created a conflict of interest, the PPCC replied that “there is absolutely no conflict of interest as it is being perceived,” citing Sections 5(a) and 5(k) of the Act, which empower the Commission to monitor procurement compliance and advise the government on best practices.
Yet procurement lawyers who asked for anonymity say those same sections do not permit the Commission to participate “directly” in a procuring entity’s evaluation or site visit activities. Instead, the PPCC’s oversight role begins only after the procuring entity has submitted its evaluation report and formally requested a “No Objection” from the Commission.
Law and Independence
Liberia’s procurement law draws clear lines between those who conduct procurements and those who review them. The Ministry of Public Works, as the procuring entity in this case, is responsible for initiating the process, inviting bids, and evaluating proposals. The PPCC’s role, by law, comes later — to independently review and approve or reject the ministry’s recommendation.
Section 11 of the PPCA grants the Commission power to obtain information “as part of its review,” but not to accompany or assist in evaluations. Section 31 prohibits interference before a procurement is completed, while Sections 5(a) and 5(k) confine the Commission’s role to policy oversight and compliance monitoring, not real-time participation as seen in the trip to China.
“The PPCC cannot be part of a procuring entity’s evaluation process, nor can it take part in any due diligence visit while the process is ongoing,” the procurement expert further told The Liberian Investigator. “That’s a fundamental breach of independence.”
The expert described Johnson’s defense as “a misreading of the law,” saying the Act’s references to monitoring and advisement “apply to system-wide improvements, not specific procurements in motion.”
The China Trip
The controversy stems from a government visit to several heavy-equipment manufacturers in China in June. Johnson traveled alongside Vice President Koung, Public Works Minister Roland Giddings, and other senior officials. The trip was described as a “fact-finding” or “technical verification” mission related to the government’s plan to purchase 285 road-building machines for nationwide infrastructure projects.
Procurement experts question why the PPCC boss, who is the final reviewer of any procurement request, would join a delegation inspecting vendors whose products are the very subject of a pending tender.
“If he later issues a ‘No Objection’ for the same procurement, how can he claim independence?” the expert asked. “You cannot be both participant and referee.”
Unanswered Questions
In its June response, when The Liberian Investigator inquired at which stage the procurement process was at, the Commission only said that the process “had been set in motion,” leaving unclear whether bidding, evaluation, or recommendation stages had been completed.
That ambiguity raised further questions. If the bids were still being evaluated, or if shortlisted companies were among those visited, the trip could constitute premature engagement with vendors.
The expert also pointed to potential ethical red flags: who financed the trip, whether all shortlisted bidders were visited, and whether any evaluation panel members participated. Under procurement regulations, such factors are critical to maintaining transparency and preventing bias.
Johnson did not address these specifics during the MICAT briefing, only reiterating that the PPCC had “no voting rights” and acted “in the best interest of Liberia.”
Legal Tension
According to the procurement specialist interviewed for this story, the PPCC’s claim that its involvement aligns with Section 5 of the Act stretches the law beyond its intent.
Section 5(a) empowers the Commission to ensure the economic and efficient use of public funds, while Section 5(k) authorizes it to advise government entities on improving procurement systems. However, these functions are designed to be exercised from a position of independence, not side-by-side with procuring entities during live tenders.
“There’s no clause in the law that allows the PPCC to accompany a ministry on vendor inspections before the evaluation is concluded,” said the expert. “That creates familiarity with suppliers and undermines the objectivity of later reviews.”
The expert added that if the Commission deems physical verification necessary, it must conduct such visits separately, after receiving a formal request for “No Objection” and identifying specific concerns that cannot be resolved without on-site confirmation.
The Procurement Sequence
Under the PPCA, all public procurements must follow a defined sequence:
The procuring entity submits a procurement plan based on its budget. Once the PPCC approves the plan, the entity issues invitations to bid, either publicly or to shortlisted firms in restricted cases. Bids are then opened in the presence of participants, evaluated by a designated panel, and reviewed by the entity’s procurement committee. Only after the committee endorses a recommended bidder is the package sent to the PPCC for a “No Objection.”
At that point, the PPCC may approve, reject, or request re-evaluation. Contracts above US$250,000 must then be endorsed by the Finance Ministry and attested by the Justice Ministry.
Johnson’s participation on the China trip, before these steps were completed, could suggest an overlap of roles that the law was specifically designed to prevent.
What’s at Stake
The “yellow machines” deal, valued at an estimated $22 million, has already attracted controversy. Reports have linked several companies to the tender, including Liberian-owned ABK Incorporated, Chinese manufacturer Shantui Evergreen, and South Africa’s Guma Group. Government officials have not publicly confirmed which firm was selected or how funding was arranged.
Johnson’s assertions that the process “went on successfully” and was “not a sole-source deal” have done little to calm suspicion. Critics argue that without disclosure of bid rankings, timelines, and evaluation reports, the public cannot be assured that the process met legal standards.
The optics of the PPCC’s top regulator touring factories with procurement decision-makers have only deepened public doubt. “Even if he didn’t sign anything, the perception of bias is damaging enough,” said a former PPCC official. “Procurement depends on trust — and that trust has been shaken.”
ABK Disputes Rejection
Meanwhile, citing inconsistencies and possible violations of procurement law, ABK Incorporated has formally challenged the Ministry of Public Works’ decision to reject its bid to supply the earthmoving equipment and utility trucks, arguing that the ruling contradicts both the Public Procurement and Concessions Act (PPCA) and the Ministry’s own written findings.
In a letter dated August 27, 2025, signed by Public Works Minister Roland Layfette Giddings, the Ministry acknowledged that ABK’s submission “met all of the qualification requirements and specifications” outlined in the bidding documents. However, the same letter declared the company’s financial proposal “not satisfactory” and “not responsive” to the government’s pre-financing plan, a justification ABK’s management says lacks merit and legal basis.
“This is to notify you that your bid submitted June 30, 2025, for the supply and delivery of Two Hundred Eighty-Five (285) Earthmoving Equipment and Twenty (20) Utility Pickup Trucks … met all qualification requirements and specifications required by the Ministry of Public Works,” the letter stated. “However, your Financial Proposal (Terms of Payment) is not satisfactory to the Government of Liberia.”
The Ministry added that the company’s bid was deemed “not responsive” to the government’s pre-financing arrangement “according to the Ad-hoc Bids Evaluation Panel and approved by the Road Maintenance Committee and the Public Procurement and Concessions Commission (PPCC).”
In response, ABK lodged a formal complaint under Section 125 of the PPCC Act, which grants aggrieved bidders the right to seek administrative review of procurement decisions. The company said it received the rejection letter on September 15, 2025, and has since asked the PPCC to investigate what it calls an “unfair and flawed evaluation process.”
“We hereby lodge a complaint under Section 125 regarding the rejection letter we received … which states that our bid ‘met all qualification requirements and specifications’ but was deemed ‘not responsive’ because the Financial Proposal was ‘not satisfactory,’” ABK wrote in its submission.
The company asserts that its bid contained no significant deviation from the tender requirements and that the rejection misinterpreted Section 62(9) of the PPCA, which defines responsiveness in public procurement. ABK states it has the financial capacity to pre-finance the entire contract within four months and remains committed to the government’s terms and schedule.
To support its claim, the firm detailed assets totaling US $20.57 million, including US $10 million in income, US $10 million in bank letters of credit, and US $575,000 in real estate and transport assets.
The United Bank for Africa (UBA) also confirmed ABK’s financial standing in a letter to the Ministry of Public Works, describing the company as “financially viable, reliable, and honest.” The bank said it was prepared to support financing “in excess of US $20 million, subject to credit policy requirements,” for the same procurement package — IFB No. MPW/NRF/G/PROJ/RB/001/2025.
The protest now places both the Ministry and the PPCC under additional scrutiny. If upheld, it could expose serious procedural breaches and intensify questions about how the yellow-machines contract was handled, from the restricted-bidding approval to the controversial China trip involving the procurement regulator himself.
Discussion about this post