What drives JAMP is simple: we want to improve the lives of every Jamaican. So much of that life depends on the schools, hospitals, roads, water and other services that public money pays for. That money belongs to all of us, so our focus on public financial accountability means ensuring it is managed lawfully, transparently and for the public good.
Public procurement is central to that. As Minister of Finance, Fayval Williams put it at the unveiling of GOJEP 2.0, procurement “is not a back office administrative activity. It is one of the primary levers that government has to serve this country… almost nothing that we promise gets built or bought without a procurement process.” In that spirit, we welcome GOJEP 2.0, the upgraded Government of Jamaica Electronic Procurement (GOJEP) platform, and examine here what must accompany this investment if it is to deliver on its promise.
On July 30, I attended the digital unveiling of the Ministry of Finance’s upgrade to the GOJEP platform, which first went live some eleven years before, in July 2015. I was very impressed with the improvements and utterly delighted by the animated testimonies of procurement practitioners and private-sector bidders, sharing the difficulties of what came before and the measurable impact of the new platform.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development describes public procurement as the government activity that is most vulnerable to waste, fraud and corruption. That is why GOJEP matters: through it, the Government has fulfilled a commitment to make the stages between advertising contract opportunities and awarding contracts more open and transparent.
GOJEP was initially designed to transform an unwieldy, paper-based process into a secure, searchable digital platform: more open, efficient and accessible, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. This new GOJEP 2.0 makes bid submission and status tracking much easier, and oversight and reporting much stronger.
The public benefits as well. Jamaicans concerned about spending on the Hurricane Melissa response can now identify the companies receiving those funds, where public bodies have labelled the contracts as hurricane-related. No expertise is needed, and no months of waiting on an access-to-information request. This is progress.
MATCH TECHNOLOGY
A better procurement platform, however, does not guarantee better procurement practices. Its promise depends on officials following the rules and oversight institutions acting when those rules are breached.
The Auditor General’s audit of the University Hospital of the West Indies (UHWI), tabled in Parliament in January, revealed egregious procurement failures. For example, between April 2019 and March 2025, UHWI paid four service providers J$631.7 million for laundry, quantity surveying, works and haulage without formal contracts. In another case, the hospital cancelled a laptop tender and invited fresh bids although it was already in receipt of the laptops.
Not all the UHWI payments are established losses, but the findings show that GOJEP’s gains will hold only if they are matched by lawful decisions, enforceable agreements and timely action when safeguards are bypassed.
Last year, the Government raised the limit for single-source procurement thresholds to speed up procurement and reduce the administrative burden. In a governance environment where our oversight bodies keep reporting procurement breaches, raising thresholds without strengthening oversight to match really leaves the job half done.
Competition for government contracts is usually the ideal, as it’s more likely to deliver value for money, makes corruption easier to detect, leaves a better paper trail and opens opportunity to more companies.
The recently tabled Integrity Commission Special Report on Public Procurement merits serious attention as it draws on contract-award records spanning 2006-2025. For example, it found that approximately two-thirds of reported contracts were awarded without competition in every year since 2017; in 2025 alone, that meant 23,234 single-source awards. When purchasing without competition becomes routine, Government must demonstrate how that choice serves the public interest.
The report also identified 3,052 single-source contracts (J$51.6 billion) that were above the legal threshold. Because the reporting forms do not ask for a justification, the Commission could not properly assess the decisions. Thankfully, the Commission has committed these cases to further examination.
Minister Williams had also said: “GOJEP 2.0 is not the finish line. We will build a fully integrated, digital, end-to-end procurement system, one that connects planning, tendering, evaluation, contract management, supplier performance and the payment.” That vision deserves support. But the system cannot end at “payment”. What follows, from audit and investigation to consequences when rules are broken, is where accountability is secured, and no software can supply it.
LET’S RETURN TO UHWI
The Minister of Health and Wellness established two committees to help the country understand what enabled such prolonged abuse of procurement rules.
The Institutional Review Committee examined governance, procurement, financial management, administration and corporate risk management and met its commitment to report to the Minister within four months. Its chair, Mr Howard Mitchell, answered media questions on May 5.
Nearly seven months after UHWI’s Acting CEO, Eric Hosin, told Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee in March that the second committee, led by Kathryn Phipps, had been established, the country has yet to learn its findings. Its mandate was to examine the Auditor General’s findings, identify staff who may be liable or culpable, and make recommendations to the board and Minister. Again, matters at the heart of accountability are falling by the wayside. WHY?
In May, Health Minister, Christopher Tufton, announced new accountability measures for his ministry, including “12 months of independent validation for above-threshold direct contracting (except at the National Health Fund) and direct submission of internal audit reports to the Ministry. On procurement, he was unequivocal: “Boards will be required to approve certified procurement plans; no financial commitment will be supported outside of the approved plans.” Non-compliance with GOJEP would be met with “a zero-tolerance approach” and “immediate consequences for breaches.”
The framework was implemented in June, with regular public updates promised. Regrettably, “regular” was not defined, but by year-end more than six months will have passed, ample time for a substantive public account. JAMP calls on the Minister to share the first of the regular reports by year-end, stating how many above-threshold direct contracts were independently validated, how many were rejected, whether any financial commitments were made outside approved procurement plans, and what “immediate consequences” followed any breaches.
GOJEP 2.0 is a credible step forward and can show us who the Government buys from, and at what price. The Auditor General can tell us what went wrong. The Integrity Commission can investigate suspicious contracting patterns. What remains reliably missing is the promised consequences when our laws are disregarded.
Jeanette A. Calder is the executive director of Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal
