Service delivery

In ancient Athens, Roberts (1982) discovered that service delivery was a significant concern. Politicians were responsible for ensuring effective service delivery to society, and a leader’s success was measured by how well they served their people. Over 1000 years later, in Medieval England, Joliffe (1937) found that citizens also prioritized service delivery, holding their leaders accountable. Effective service delivery became a core aspect of accountability, separate from democratic ideals. The king had a duty to ensure service delivery, and by the 12th century, a rudimentary system of fiscal accountability emerged. This system enforced control over those executing the king’s duties, requiring them to answer for their actions, which further emphasized the importance of service delivery.

From the 16th century onwards, Locke (1947) observed that England’s constitutional history focused on whether parliament could replace divine accountability by holding the king and his ministers responsible for service delivery and controlling expenditures. In modern times, developing countries continue to face challenges in meeting the needs of their populations and achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Over recent decades, sectors like education and health have been recognized globally as critical to human development and poverty eradication (WHO, 2002; Annual Health Sector Performance Report, 2010/2011; United Nations Development Programme, 2010; Ministry of Health, 2010).

WHO (2004) notes that one-third of the world’s population lacks access to essential medicines, contributing to poverty, mortality, and debt. Sub-Saharan Africa has struggled with inadequate healthcare workforce levels, frequent shortages of essential medicines, and underfunded services (Martinear, 2009; WHO, 2005/2006–2009/2010). The Department of International Development (2009) highlights that the MDGs were adopted by 189 nations to combat poverty, yet many parts of sub-Saharan Africa and Asia remain off-track in meeting these goals. In Uganda, studies following the 1993 decentralization policy reveal improvements in service delivery, such as classroom construction that reduced the pupil-teacher ratio and a 2006 increase in health units by 8% (MOES, 2010; MOH, 2010).

Service delivery remains a critical issue for governments and researchers alike. Scholars agree that public service delivery is essential for national welfare and economic development, as governments are responsible for providing services within the rule of law (Mampe, 2012; Bola, 2011; Nandain, 2006; Kaunda, 2005; Shan, 2005). Government parastatals recognize that improving service delivery efficiency enhances value for money (Duggan et al., 2008). In public procurement, service delivery management involves ensuring that all deliverables are met according to the contract (Shah, 2005), requiring close monitoring of suppliers through contract management.

Contract management plays a crucial role in ensuring successful procurement and service delivery (Oluka et al., 2014). Inefficient contract management can lead to cost overruns and increased risks (Aberdeen Group, 2006). Joshua et al. (2004) found that in the U.S. federal system, public contract management and accountability remain weak points. Contract management supports both parties in fulfilling their obligations (Walton, 2009; Elsey, 2007). In Uganda, contract management is transferred to user departments upon awarding contracts to ensure effective service delivery (PPDA Act, 2003; PPDA Amendment Act, 2011).

Despite its importance, contract management in public procurement has been neglected. In Australia, a government audit found that 30% of audited contracts had irregularities, with some deliverables not being received as specified (Australian Government Audit Office, 2007). In Uganda, a 2010 baseline survey on public procurement systems revealed significant delays in contract completion (PPDA, 2010). Furthermore, government payments for substandard work or incomplete contracts have undermined service delivery (Rwothungeyo, 2013). PPDA audit reports of UNBS (2009 and 2013) showed high risks associated with missing contract management records, delayed payments, and delayed deliveries.

The PPDA regulations of 2014 re-emphasized the need for contract management across all public bodies. Although the UNBS strategic plan (2010-2015) includes mechanisms for tracking and reporting procurement work-plan activities, service delivery remains below expectations, evidenced by complaints about poor-quality services, frequent contract cancellations, and incomplete deliveries (Mubangizi, 2013).