Split Procurement: From Interpretative Problems to Liability

Abstract

This article aims to study and analyze the interpretation of split procurement, which may lead to legal liability. The findings reveal that the Government Procurement and Supplies Management Act B.E. 2560 and its related regulations play a vital role in promoting transparency, preventing corruption, fostering fair competition, enhancing the efficiency of government budget utilization, and ensuring uniform standards in public supplies management. However, it was found that some government executives, procurement managers, officers, and procurement committee members fail to perform their duties properly due to misunderstandings, noncompliance with established procedures, criteria, and conditions, negligence in seeking accurate knowledge, or even corrupt intent. Split procurement poses a corruption risk at the pre-procurement stage, reflecting an intention to hinder fair competition and provide undue advantages to certain private entities. Therefore, the interpretation of split procurement should adhere to the intent of the law, based on the facts of each case, as well as the rulings of the Government Procurement and Supplies Management Problems Decision Committee and the Supreme Administrative Court. A notable case is the 2021 procurement of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Kits (ATKs) by the Rural Doctors Society, which demonstrates the legal implications affecting individual rights, liberties, and property. Based on these findings, the Ministry of Public Health should conduct training and capacity-building programs to enhance officials’ understanding of definitions, procedures, and correct practices. This will ensure the maximum benefit to the state, uphold the principles of good governance, and minimize the risk of liability arising from the performance of official duties.