| Year of assessment | 2021-2022 |
| Date of publication | April 2024 |
| Country procurement volume | 955.4 million USD (2021) |
| Principal organisation | Government of Benin |
| Main partners | World Bank |
Benin
Recognizing the central role that public procurement plays in public service delivery, financial management, and sustainable development, this MAPS MAIN assessment resulted in recommendations concerning procurement methods (open tenders in particular), publication of tenders, developing a sustainable public procurement strategy, strengthening the national procurement authority and professionalising procurement staff, improving procurement planning and contract management, and bolstering the independent appeals system.
Share
LinkedIn
Youtube
Quick facts
Background
Why was a MAPS assessment initiated?
The assessment was initiated to evaluate and improve Benin’s public procurement system, with a focus on enhancing governance and efficiency in public spending.
Who initiated the assessment?
The Government of Benin, in collaboration with international partners, including the World Bank.
Brief description of the country procurement system
The procurement system in Benin is regulated and overseen by multiple governmental entities, with a national committee coordinating evaluations. It follows internal regulations and is influenced by supranational frameworks such as the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU).
Is there anything else about the country that merits mention?
Benin is a lower-middle-income country facing significant poverty and economic challenges. The government has been actively addressing the economic impact of COVID-19, and the Port of Cotonou plays a strategic role in regional trade despite competition and corruption issues.
Were there any disruptions?
While no specific disruptions were mentioned, economic challenges, regional competition, corruption, and the impact of COVID-19 may have affected the procurement system.
Main results and impact
While operating on a foundation of a fairly strong legal framework that, with notable qualifications regarding some issues relating to transparency, the assessment nonetheless identified more structural challenges when looking into the institutional ecosystem, procurement practices, and integrity. Listed by each of the four pillars of MAPS, key findings of the assessment were:
Weaknesses in the Legal Framework
The legal framework for public procurement in Benin has several shortcomings, including a lack of a clear hierarchy among procurement regulations, rigid legislative reforms, and the absence of comprehensive legal definitions for key procurement concepts.
Recommendations:
- Revise the Public Procurement Code to clarify that open tendering is the default procedure, specify conditions for national vs. international tenders, and remove the Council of Ministers’ involvement in awarding contracts.
- Introduce new definitions in the Public Procurement Code for terms such as "specialized procurement" and "critical contracts."
- Ensure all public contracts, regardless of funding source, are subject to publication requirements.
- Align national procurement regulations with the unified public procurement directive of WAEMU (West African Economic and Monetary Union).
Lack of a National Sustainable Procurement Strategy
Benin does not have a national policy framework to integrate sustainability principles—economic, social, and environmental—into public procurement.
Recommendations:
- Develop a national strategy for sustainable public procurement.
- Define clear guidelines for incorporating environmental and social criteria into procurement decisions.
Weak Institutional Capacity and Human Resource Constraints
The procurement regulatory authority (ARMP) and key contracting entities lack sufficient human resources and technical capacity to effectively oversee procurement processes.
Recommendations:
- Strengthen the ARMP’s mandate and allocate more resources for staffing and capacity building.
- Establish specialized training programs and certification requirements for procurement officials.
Weak Coordination Among Key Procurement Institutions
There is a lack of clear role definitions between the central procurement authority (DNCMP) and the regulatory authority (ARMP), which creates inefficiencies in procurement oversight.
Recommendations:
- Clarify the responsibilities of DNCMP and ARMP to avoid overlap and ensure efficient regulatory enforcement.
- Strengthen inter-institutional coordination mechanisms.
Inefficiencies in Procurement Planning
Procurement planning is weak, often disconnected from broader budgetary planning, and lacks market analysis to ensure effective competition.
Recommendations:
- Require contracting authorities to conduct market assessments before procurement planning.
- Ensure procurement plans are linked to budgetary allocations.
Delayed Contract Award and Execution
Significant delays in procurement processes lead to inefficiencies in contract execution and prevent timely service delivery.
Recommendations:
- Streamline procurement approval processes to reduce delays.
- Strengthen monitoring mechanisms to track procurement timelines and contract performance.
Limited Civil Society Engagement and Public Oversight
Civil society organizations (CSOs) are not adequately involved in procurement monitoring, limiting transparency and public accountability.
Recommendations:
- Strengthen the role of CSOs in procurement oversight through structured engagement mechanisms.
- Enhance public access to procurement information through proactive disclosure.
Weak Audit and Complaint Mechanisms
Audit processes are delayed, and the complaints resolution mechanism lacks independence, reducing the credibility of procurement oversight.
Recommendations:
- Ensure timely publication of independent procurement audits.
- Establish an independent administrative body to handle procurement complaints, separate from contracting authorities.
Watch the webinar
(in French)