Question

The Public Health Directorate in November 2015 anticipated the outbreak of Yellow Fever in the first quarter of the ensuing year 2016. The Directorate subsequently asked the procurement officer to place an order for the supply of Yellow Fever vaccines.

In December, 2015, the Procurement officer placed an order for the supply of the vaccines but the order was silent on the strengths of the vaccine and delivery date. In January 2016, the Head of Entity requested the Procurement Officer to brief him on the preparedness towards the anticipated outbreak. The procurement officer confirmed placing an order in December 2015 for the supply of the vaccines. Delivery was expected in the first quarter of 2016 before the anticipated outbreak. In February 2016, the Procurement Officer got anxious that the vaccines had not been delivered as expected. Sporadic cases of Yellow Fever were reported in endemic districts in the Asempa region of Ghana.

The Head of Entity convened a meeting to discuss the outbreak. Public Health practitioners in the Region confirmed their preparedness through treatment protocols to support fieldwork in the event of an epidemic. It became obvious that the delivery could not be made before the outbreak. The Head of Entity accordingly requested the Procurement Officer to brief the meeting on arrangements made for the delivery of the vaccines.

In response, the Procurement Officer presented volumes of files in support of orders placed. It took the meeting three sittings to retrieve a copy of the particular contract.

When the supplier was contacted to explain the delivery, he intimated that he had an unlimited time for delivery as the contract was not explicit on the delivery date. He however informed the entity that he had pediatric doses of the vaccine which he could immediately supply

Eventually there was an outbreak which claimed several lives. The Procurement Officer insisted that he was not blamable because he had placed the order as far back as December, 2015.

Q.Is the Procurement Officer justified in not accepting blame? Explain your answer?

Answer 1

There is ample evidence in the article to show that the procurement officer consecutively was at fault and didn't perform his duty as an honest and ethically correct officer.

In the second paragraph of the article we can see that the order which procurement officer placed was silent on the strength of the vaccine and the delivery date. This folly of the procurement officer resulted in the supplier not supplying the vaccines before the epidemic started.

Therefore, we can say that the procurement officer should be blamed and punished for his non-performance as an honest procurement officer.