Некорректные критерии тендеров в Маврикии приводят к снижению качества страхования и переплатам налогоплательщиков

By Kanden Moonien, Assistant Risk and Compliance Officer, GFA Insurance Ltd - The Hidden Price of Mauritian Procurement Laws Imagine a public body seeking insurance for critical national infrastructure. Two insurers submit bids. One offers comprehensive cover for Rs 57.1 million. The other quotes Rs 80 million—Rs 23 million more. The obvious choice would appear to be the lower-priced offer. Instead, that bidder is disqualified because of a single accounting ratio: Return on Capital Employed (ROCE). Left with only one qualifying bidder, the public body negotiates the price down to Rs 48.8 million, but only after removing parts of the insurance cover. The contract costs less, yet provides less protection. This was the reality behind Independent Review Panel Decision No. 14/26, involving the Central Electricity Board (CEB), GFA Insurance and SICOM. The IRP ultimately dismissed GFA’s application—not because it concluded that the evaluation criterion was appropriate, but because our challenge was filed outside the statutory deadline. We fully accept that procedural lapse. However, accepting a procedural mistake should not prevent a broader discussion about whether the procurement system itself is producing the best outcomes for taxpayers. When Procedure Overrides Substance Mauritius’ Public Procurement Act requires challenges to tender criteria to be lodged within five calendar days of publication. The objective is understandable. Public projects require certainty, and unsuccessful bidders should not be allowed to raise objections only after losing. Yet five calendar days is an exceptionally short period to review lengthy technical tender documents, obtain specialist advice and assess whether evaluation criteria are legally and commercially appropriate. Internationally, many procurement systems adopt a different approach. The World Bank, UNCITRAL Model Law and European Union procurement framework generally provide standstill periods of 10 to 15 days, recognising that transparency and value for money depend on allowing sufficient time for meaningful scrutiny. When procedural deadlines become more important than examining whether evaluation criteria genuinely serve the public interest, compliance risks overtaking common sense. Why ROCE Was the Wrong Measure The central issue was the use of Return on Capital Employed as a measure of an insurer’s financial strength. ROCE is a recognised corporate financial ratio. It measures profitability and capital efficiency. What it does not measure is whether an insurance company has the financial capacity to honour claims. That is precisely why the Insurance Act establishes specific prudential requirements, including statutory solvency margins, capital adequacy and reinsurance arrangements. These are the benchmarks designed to assess an insurer’s ability to protect policyholders. In GFA’s case, the company’s average ROCE was significantly affected by an exceptional accounting loss arising from the implementation of new IFRS standards during 2023—not by any deterioration in its underlying financial strength. Importantly, the Independent Review Panel itself acknowledged that ROCE presented potential weaknesses as an indicator of an insurer’s financial standing and observed that the statutory measures contained in the Insurance Act could have provided a better assessment. Because the application was ruled time-barred, however, the Panel was not required to determine whether ROCE should have been used at all. That distinction matters. The case was decided on timing—not on whether the criterion represented sound procurement practice. The Hidden Cost of Poor Evaluation Criteria Using unsuitable qualification criteria has consequences that extend well beyond one procurement exercise. When appropriate bidders are excluded for reasons unrelated to the services being procured, competition narrows. Reduced competition weakens the purchaser’s negotiating position and increases the likelihood of higher prices or reduced contract scope. That is precisely what occurred here. To reduce the winning quotation from Rs 80.8 million to Rs 48.8 million, elements of the original insurance programme had to be removed and procured separately. Whether taxpayers ultimately pay more or receive less protection, the outcome falls short of the core objective of public procurement: obtaining the best value for public money. A Broader Issue This is not an isolated concern. Over several years, GFA has made representations to numerous public bodies—including the Mauritius Revenue Authority (MRA), the University of Mauritius (UoM), the Competition Commission of Mauritius (CCM), the Public Procurement Office (PPO) and the Central Procurement Board (CPB)—regarding qualification criteria that appear arbitrary, disproportionate or insufficiently connected to the subject matter of the procurement. Evaluation criteria should distinguish between capable and incapable suppliers—not inadvertently exclude competent participants through financial indicators that do not measure the risks being procured. A more consistent and sector-specific approach would encourage stronger competition, improve transparency and ultimately deliver better value for taxpayers. Time for Reform The lesson from this case is not simply that bidders must act quickly—although they should. Public bodies also have a responsibility to ensure that the criteria they adopt genuinely assess what matters. Insurance procurement should focus on recognised prudential measures established under the Insurance Act, rather than generic accounting ratios developed for broader corporate analysis. Greater consistency across public-sector procurement would also reduce unnecessary disputes, improve confidence in the system and strengthen public accountability. For its part, GFA has strengthened its internal compliance procedures to ensure every public tender is legally reviewed immediately upon publication. At the same time, policymakers should consider whether the current five-day challenge period remains fit for purpose or whether a longer timeframe—consistent with international practice—would better protect the integrity of public procurement. This case was never about whether GFA should have won a particular contract. It raises a much larger question: Are our procurement rules selecting the suppliers best equipped to protect public assets—or are they allowing technicalities and inappropriate evaluation criteria to distort competition? If the answer is the latter, then the price will ultimately be paid by the taxpayer. When the rulebook wins, taxpayers pay. It is time to ensure that procurement rules reward substance as much as procedure.