Why PPCC’s trip with VP Koung is a procurement scandal

Published: June 20, 2025

Monrovia, Liberia – A legal review by The Liberian Investigator and consultations with procurement experts reveal a clear breach of the Public Procurement and Concessions Act (PPCA): the Executive Director of the PPCC, Mr. Bodger Scott Johnson, had no legal or ethical grounds to travel with the Vice President’s delegation to China for procurement-related activities. His presence directly undermines the independence of the procurement process and violates both the spirit and letter of the law.

While the delegation led by Vice President Jeremiah Kpan Koung Sr. claims the visit is part of a “technological and physical verification” of unsolicited proposals submitted by equipment manufacturers, the presence of the PPCC’s Executive Director on this trip has prompted accusations of conflict of interest and violation of procurement independence.

According to procurement experts who spoke on condition of anonymity to The Liberian Investigator, Mr. Johnson’s role as the final reviewer of procurement requests disqualifies him from participating in a process that includes any form of preliminary evaluation, including site visits, inspections, or familiarity-building with potential vendors. “It goes against every fundamental principle of impartiality,” one expert noted.

Understanding the Procurement Chain

Before any contract is signed or site visit conducted, Liberia’s Public Procurement and Concessions Act lays out a detailed, mandatory procurement process:

1. The Procuring Entity prepares and submits an annual procurement plan based on approved budget allocations.
2. The PPCC reviews and approves the plan.
3. The Procuring Entity initiates the procurement by issuing bidding documents or invitations, based on the approved method (open, restricted, etc.).
4. Bids are received and publicly opened.
5. A Bid Evaluation Panel is constituted by the Procuring Entity.
6. The Panel evaluates the bids in line with pre-set criteria and produces a report.
7. The report is reviewed by the Procurement Committee of the Procuring Entity.
8. Upon endorsement, the Procuring Entity sends a formal Request for No Objection, including all evaluation materials, to the PPCC.
9. The PPCC conducts an independent review—possibly including offsite or remote due diligence.
10. If satisfied, the PPCC issues a No Objection. If not, it requests retendering or re-evaluation.
11. Contracts above US$250,000 must be signed by the Minister of Finance and attested to by the Minister of Justice.

With this legally binding sequence, no involvement by the PPCC Executive Director at the pre-evaluation or site verification stage is permitted.

The Legal Framework: What the PPCC Act Demands

Section 1 of the Amended and Restated Public Procurement and Concessions Act (PPCA), 2010, clearly states that the Act governs all procurements made using public funds. This includes goods, works, and services, such as the acquisition of earth-moving equipment through any means, including restricted or open bidding.

Further, Section 40 mandates that all procurement must be guided by a plan approved as part of the national budgetary process. Section 50 and 51, which govern Restricted Bidding, allow it only in specific cases such as limited market supply or urgency, and require it to be procedurally justified. However, none of these sections override the requirements for impartiality, proper due diligence, and institutional separation of duties.

Section 11 of the Act gives the PPCC power to obtain information as part of its due diligence review. However, as clarified in the 2014 Amended Regulations, any such action must be taken independently and after the procuring entity has submitted its Evaluation Report and request for a No Objection. It does not permit the Commission’s leadership to accompany the procuring entity on vendor visits.

“PPCC must not conduct any type of Onsite due diligence of bidders with involvement of the Procuring Entity, so as to render independent and balanced inquiry, without influence,” the procurement expert stated.

PPCC Response and Its Shortcomings

In response to inquiries from The Liberian Investigator, the PPCC defended Mr. Johnson’s inclusion on the trip, citing Section 5(a) and 5(k) of the Act, which grant the Commission authority to monitor compliance and advise the government on procurement matters.

“There is absolutely no conflict of interest as it is being perceived… It is done in the best interest of Liberia and in the framework of ensuring best value for money,” said the PPCC.

The PPCC added: “Additionally, the PPC Act mandates the PPCC to assess the operations of the public procurementand concession processes and make improvements as and when necessary. It also provides for the performance of functions as are incidental to the attainment of the objects of PPC Act.”

However, procurement analysts argue that the response is a flawed interpretation of the law. Section 5(k), which allows the Commission to advise the government, does not imply participation in a procurement process being actively undertaken by a procuring entity. Instead, it refers to policy-level advisement or technical guidance outside of vendor evaluation.

Moreover, the Amended Regulations under Regulation 12(10) prohibit any member of the PPCC or the Procuring Entity from involving themselves in the activities of the Bid Evaluation Panel or the site visits of bidders, a point reinforced by the Commission’s own internal due diligence protocols.

A Shadow Over Restricted Bidding

The Ministry of Public Works has reportedly triggered a Restricted Bidding process for the equipment. Section 50 and 55 of the Act allow this only under strict conditions. But the process is already compromised if the Commission’s top regulator is part of a delegation assessing shortlisted vendors before bid submissions or evaluations.

Legal analysts warn that this may violate Section 31 of the Act, which forbids contract conclusion or interference before the completion of a transparent and lawful procurement process. “This is preemptive positioning,” one procurement lawyer stated. “They are not just inspecting machinery; they are warming up to preferred vendors, and the law forbids that.”

Independence Undermined

The entire procurement process is built upon checks and balances. The procuring entity (in this case, the Ministry of Public Works) is responsible for initiating, evaluating, and recommending procurement decisions. The PPCC then acts as a reviewer and, if all legal standards are met, grants a No Objection.

By inserting itself into the Ministry’s pre-evaluation activities, the Commission has destroyed the arm’s-length relationship it is legally required to maintain.

“If the PPCC reviews the submissions before it, looks at all the bidders’ offers, videos of site visits by the procuring entity’s evaluators… this is all part of due diligence,” stated the procurement expert. “However, PPCC must not be part of the procuring entity’s evaluation process or site visits.”

One lawyer familiar with the PPCC Act told The Liberian Investigator:

“Even if they justify it as an informational trip, the mere presence of Mr. Johnson raises issues of bias. He cannot be in the same room as the evaluators and vendors before the final review is made. It’s a textbook violation of procurement ethics.”

Another procurement official warned:

“The appearance of favoritism is just as damaging as actual bias. What happens when a company complains that PPCC already made up its mind while in China?”