CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AND SERVICE DELIVERY IN UGANDA PARASTATAL BODIES: A CASE STUDY OF UGANDA NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS (UNBS)
CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
In recent years, the complexity and volume of contracts have increased significantly across the globe. This trend can be attributed to factors such as globalization, outsourcing, heightened competition for markets, and the growing number of complex partnerships. Over the past five decades, many large organizations have evolved from simple manufacturers of goods or providers of basic services into sophisticated entities operating with advanced business models. As a result, there has been a greater need for both customers and suppliers to adhere strictly to contractual obligations, thereby increasing the importance of effective and sustainable contract management policies (Krappe & Kallayil, 2003).
The Aberdeen Group (2006) observed that poor management of supplier contracts, coupled with unclear policies and procedures, can significantly affect organizational performance. Such inefficiencies may lead to cost overruns and increased exposure to risks for both contracting parties. Similarly, Joshua et al. (2004), in a comparative study of contracting practices across city, state, and federal governments in the United States, found that although public sector contracting processes are generally similar, contract management and accountability remain weak links.
Still (2005) emphasizes that contracts are the backbone of modern business operations. Without them, engaging in commercial transactions would be highly risky. However, managing contracts in medium and large organizations presents its own challenges. Managers must ensure that contractual terms and conditions are clear, enforceable, and effectively implemented. Furthermore, a survey by the International Association for Contract and Commercial Management (2008) revealed a decline in large-scale global contracts and a rise in smaller, more complex contracts involving second-tier companies.
Government parastatal bodies increasingly recognize that efficient service delivery enhances value for money (Duggan et al., 2008). Consequently, these entities must adopt strategies to improve efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery. This includes strengthening monitoring systems, improving service quality and accessibility, and reducing costs. In public procurement, service delivery management focuses on ensuring that contractual deliverables are fully met (Shah, 2005). Effective contract management is therefore essential in ensuring that services are delivered as agreed.
The Clackmannanshire Council (2013) highlights that service delivery should be managed throughout the contract lifecycle to ensure compliance with agreed standards such as quality, cost, timeliness, and sustainability. Protiviti (2009) further argues that the absence of formal, well-documented contract management processes can negatively impact an organization’s ability to monitor service delivery and meet stakeholder expectations.
Stakeholder involvement is critical in effective contract management and service delivery. Stakeholders differ in their influence, interest, and relevance, making their engagement essential in planning and implementation (Bolt, 2011). Establishing representative committees can facilitate structured communication and coordination. Ghebreyesus et al. (2008) suggest that involving stakeholders in day-to-day contract management enhances service quality and customer satisfaction. Mubangizi (2013) emphasizes the need for UNBS to implement feedback mechanisms, track procurement processes, and ensure compliance with service delivery procedures to achieve value for money.
Despite the importance of contract management, Lynch (2013) notes that it has received limited attention in public procurement studies, which have largely focused on procurement processes rather than contract implementation. The National Audit Office (2008) also observes that greater emphasis is often placed on procurement rather than post-award contract management, yet it is during implementation that the benefits of procurement are realized. Effective contract management can enhance revenue, reduce costs, and improve service delivery (South Africa Contract Management Guide, 2010). However, cases of delayed, incomplete, or poor-quality contract execution continue to hinder government performance (Rwothungeyo, 2013).
Audit reports highlight persistent challenges. The Australian Government Audit Office (2007) found that about 30% of contract management processes had irregularities, including failure to deliver agreed outputs. Similarly, Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) audit reports for UNBS (2009 and 2013) identified risks such as missing contract records, delayed payments, and late deliveries.
Although the UNBS Strategic Plan (2010–2015) introduced mechanisms for tracking procurement and improving service delivery, challenges persist. These include poor-quality goods and services, high contract cancellations, delayed or partial deliveries, and missing documentation, all of which have resulted in resource losses (Mubangizi, 2013).
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The UNBS Procurement and Disposal Unit (PDU) Annual Report (2012) indicates that over 200 procurement contracts were awarded in the 2011/2012 financial year. However, the level of service delivery for many of these contracts remains unclear. Mubangizi (2013) reported widespread issues, including 30% contract cancellations, 5% non-delivery or partial delivery, 10% delayed deliveries, and 60% delayed payments beyond the stipulated 30-day period. Additional concerns include poor quality goods and services, high costs, and missing contract documentation. These persistent challenges highlight the need to examine how contract management influences service delivery at UNBS.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The study aims to examine the influence of stakeholder involvement and contract management on service delivery at UNBS.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
i. To establish the relationship between contract planning and service delivery.
ii. To investigate the influence of contract monitoring on service delivery in parastatal bodies.
iii. To assess the impact of contract evaluation on service delivery at UNBS.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
i. What is the relationship between contract planning and service delivery?
ii. How does contract monitoring influence service delivery in parastatal bodies?
iii. What is the impact of contract evaluation on service delivery at UNBS?
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
Subject Scope:
The study focuses on contract management and its influence on service delivery.
Geographical Scope:
The research will be conducted at UNBS headquarters in Nakawa, regional offices, and offices in Kanjokya.
Time Scope:
The study covers the period from 2010 to 2013, when UNBS intensified efforts to improve service delivery. Data collection will take place over three months (May–August 2014).
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The study will:
- Provide recommendations to improve service delivery at UNBS.
- Inform policymakers on the role of contract management in service delivery.
- Contribute to academic knowledge for future research in contract management and public sector performance.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The study conceptualizes that contract planning, contract monitoring, and contract evaluation directly influence service delivery. Intervening variables such as policy enforcement, stakeholder influence, and media publicity may affect this relationship. Effective contract planning determines outcomes, monitoring ensures compliance through inspections, and evaluation assesses performance against set targets to enable corrective action.
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS
Contract Management: The process of ensuring that contractual obligations between parties are fulfilled through planning, monitoring, and evaluation.
Contract Planning: The use of tools and strategies to organize and control activities throughout the contract lifecycle.
Contract Monitoring: Continuous assessment and reporting of project performance to ensure alignment with objectives.
Contract Evaluation: The comparison of actual performance against planned targets to guide corrective measures.
Service Delivery: The efficient and effective provision of services to intended beneficiaries, often reflecting quality and timeliness.
