It appears that there is a looming institutional overlap in Ghana’s public financial management architecture, as procurement and supply professionals are raising concerns over the content of the newly passed Value for Money Office Act.
The Ghana Institute of Procurement and Supply (GIPS) warns that the newly passed Value for Money (VFM) Office Act may duplicate existing laws rather than strengthen them.
In a formal petition to the Finance Ministry and Parliament’s Finance Committee, the Institute backed the intent behind the law but cautioned that, in its current form, it risks creating confusion, inefficiencies, and unnecessary bureaucratic layers.
Same Goals, Different Laws
According to GIPS President Simon Annan, a comparative analysis conducted by the Institute shows that the objectives of the VFM Act significantly overlap with the existing Public Procurement Act.
Both frameworks, he explains, are designed to ensure efficiency, effectiveness, and value for money in the use of public funds.
For the institute, the Public Procurement Act already ensures efficiency, effectiveness, and value for money. However, a careful study of the VFM Act reveals that it also seeks to achieve the same objective.
This raises critical concern for practitioners if two different laws are pursuing identical goals.
Overlapping Oversight Functions
Beyond shared objectives, the Institute further reveals a more technical but equally significant issue, which is overlapping oversight responsibilities.
The Public Procurement Act already provides for post-award monitoring, internal audits, and contract performance reviews under its existing provisions. Yet, similar clauses appear in the new VFM law, particularly around contract outcomes and compliance monitoring.
To GIPS, this duplication is not just a legal nuance, it could translate into real operational confusion.
For instance, imagine a government agency executing a contract. Would it now answer to two separate oversight regimes reviewing the same process? Would this slow down project delivery or create conflicting directives?
These are the kinds of uncertainties the Institute says must be addressed before full implementation.
Global Standards Tell a Different Story
The Institute further argues that Ghana may be deviating from global best practice. Drawing on international benchmarks, including frameworks used by the World Bank and the European Union, Simon Annan emphasized that value for money is typically embedded within procurement systems, not separated into a standalone structure.
In other words, globally, procurement laws are designed to inherently deliver value for money, rather than requiring an additional institutional layer to enforce it.
A Call for Rethink, Not Rejection
Despite the concerns, the Institute is not opposing the law outright. Instead, it is calling for a careful review to harmonise the VFM Act with existing procurement legislation.
The goal, Annan stressed, is to avoid institutional duplication while strengthening accountability.
Without proper alignment, it is feared that the well-intentioned reforms can create friction instead of efficiency.
The Bottomline
At a time when public resources are under intense scrutiny, ensuring value for money is not optional; it has become essential. But how that objective is achieved is just as important as the objective itself.
If overlapping mandates lead to delays, confusion, or increased administrative costs, the very purpose of the law could be undermined.
