Value for money in public procurement: Experience from Zimbabwe’s rural district councils

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Table 1. Items for the instrument

PROCUREMENT OBJECTIVES (PROB)

Integrity, accountability, transparency and value for money are the main procurement objectives in RDCs.

The RDC’s procurement goals enable efficient service delivery.

Adherence to objectives exposes RDCs’ unethical conducts in procurement management system.

The clarity of RDC’s procurement objectives determines the level of service delivery.

Transparency objective in RDCs procurement guarantees high quality service delivery.

Unclear public procurement objectives in RDCs delays service delivery.

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT PROCESS (PROP)

The RDC’s contracts in public procurement are always won by the best evaluated bidder.

During the evaluation, only the criteria listed in the bid document are applied.

All discounts and alternatives are read out at the bid opening to guarantee transparency in RDCs.

The RDC employs only official communication when contacting bidders or their representatives.

The bidder or its agents have no influence over the RDC’s bid evaluation process.

The RDC’s protracted procurement processes are the cause of delays in service delivery.

PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT (PROM)

All the RDC’s procurement activities are managed by a specialized procurement department.

The RDC has systems for comparing deliverables to procurement specifications.

The RDC has mechanisms for detecting poor performance in service delivery.

The RDC has a clear record management system of supplier performance for all procurements.

The RDC makes timely payments to suppliers.

All the RDC’s departments have clear procurement plans.

All the RDC’s procurement requirements are carried out on schedule.

VALUE FOR MONEY (VAFM)

The RDC uses correct procurement procedures in its service delivery.

The RDCs’ evaluation committees adequately analyze bids.

The Public Procurement Act of 2018 has strengthened the RDCs’ spending control.

The RDC compares its purchase plan to the procurement budget to identify expenditure inconsistencies.

The RDC’s projects are commissioned immediately after completion.

The RDC uses procurement best practices to reduce costs.

Table 2. Reliability and validity

Latent Variables	Cronbach’s Alpha Score	KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Procurement Objectives	.785	0.825
Public Procurement Process	.827	0.839
Procurement Management	.776	0.798
Value for Money	.792	0.715

Table 3. Hypothesis 1 SEM results

Variables	Path	Variables	Hypothesis	Path coefficient	Standard Error	Critical Region	P-Value
Procurement Objectives	→	Procurement Process	H1	0.78	0. 104	6.526	C***

Table 4. Hypothesis 2 SEM results

Variables	Path	Variables	Hypothesis	Path coefficient	Standard Error	Critical Region	P-Value
Procurement Process	→	Procurement Management	H2	0.79	0. 143	6.784	C***

Table 5. Hypothesis 3 SEM result

Variables	Path	Variables	Hypothesis	Path coefficient	Standard Error	Critical Region	P-Value
Procurement Objectives	→	Value for Money	H3	0.95	0. 146	5.213	C***

Table 6. Hypothesis 4 SEM results

Variables	Path	Variables	Hypothesis	Path coefficient	Standard Error	Critical Region	P-Value
Procurement Process	→	Value for Money	H4	0.87	0. 135	5.301	C***

Table 7. Hypothesis 5 SEM results

Variables	Path	Variables	Hypothesis	Path coefficient	Standard Error	Critical Region	P-Value
Procurement Management	→	Value for Money	H5	0.89	0. 408	5.894	C ***

Table 8. Summary of hypotheses

S/n	Hypothesised relationship	CR	P-value	Remarks
H1	Procurement Objectives → Procurement process	6.526	C***	Supported
H2	Procurement Process → Procurement management	6.784	C***	Supported
H3	Procurement Objectives → Value for money	5.231	C***	Supported
H4	Procurement Process → Value for money	5.301	C***	Supported
H5	Procurement Management → Value for money	5.894	C***	Supported

Notes: CR = critical ratio; C*** = significant at p < 0.001.