NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY
---------oOo---------
GROUP ASSIGNMENT
INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT
TOPIC: Attracting and using ODA in VN - situation and solutions
Group members:
Phạm Thành Nam_11224473
Đỗ Hoàng Quốc Bảo_11220790
Nguyễn Tiến Trung_11226624
Đỗ Minh Hiển_11222259
Vũ Trọng Hiếu_11222367
Instructor: Nguyen Thi Thuong
Hanoi, April 2025
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1. Rationale ............................................................................................................ 1
2. Aims of the study ................................................................................................ 1
3. Object and range of study .................................................................................. 1
4. Structure of the study ......................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY
PRINCIPLE IN PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES. ..................................................... 3
1.1. Bidding ............................................................................................................ 3
1.1.1. Definition .................................................................................................. 3
1.1.2. Benefits of bidding activities ..................................................................... 4
1.2. Principle of accountability in bidding activities ............................................. 5
1.2.1. Accountabilities......................................................................................... 5
1.2.2. Accountabilities in bidding activities........................................................ 6
1.2.3. Procedures for performing the accountabilities ....................................... 9
CHAPTER 2: CURRENT SITUATIONS .................................................................12
2.1. Current situations of bidding activities in Hai Phong city ........................... 12
2.2. Current situations of implementing the principle of accountability in bidding
activities in Hai Phong ......................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 3: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SOLUTIONS ....................................16
3.1. Solutions ........................................................................................................ 16
3.2. Recommendations ......................................................................................... 18
CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................19
REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................20
1
INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
In the setting of growing global economic integration, nations frequently
merge local and foreign funding for their investment efforts. Many developing
countries globally have turned to government assistance for borrowing. Vietnam
officially began its connection with the global donor community during the Donor
Conference in Paris, France, in 1993, which kicked off the process of attracting
ODA funds for the nation.
Over the last three decades, ODA funding has significantly helped Vietnam’s
reform and economic progress, improved friendly ties with other nations and
international financial bodies, and facilitated deeper integration into the global
economy. Nevertheless, despite these benefits, data related to fund disbursements
reveal that from 1993 to March 2020, disbursement amounts varied significantly
each year, suggesting that Vietnam's ability to utilize capital and oversee ODA
funding has not yet met expectations.
2. Aims of the study
The aim of this research is to investigate and assess the significance,
efficiency, and difficulties associated with securing, administering, and utilizing
Official Development Assistance (ODA) in Vietnam. This study will offer both a
theoretical and practical basis that can help policymakers create suitable policies, as
well as aid organizations and businesses in making the best use of ODA resources
for development initiatives.
3. Object and range of study
The thesis focuses on the study of Official Development Assistance (ODA),
including its characteristics, operational mechanisms, management policies, and the
effectiveness of ODA utilization in Vietnam.
4. Structure of the study
Apart from the introduction, table of contents, and references, the study is divided
into 3 chapters:
Chapter 1: Theoretical Basis of the Accountability Principle in Procurement
Activities.
Chapter 2: Current Situation.
2
Chapter 3: Recommendations and Solutions.
3
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY
PRINCIPLE IN PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES.
1.1. Bidding
1.1.1. Definition
According to Laffont et al (1993), Procurement is the process of locating and
agreeing to terms and purchasing goods, services, or other works from an external
source, often with the use of a tendering or competitive bidding process. The state
of Arkansas’ Procurement Law and Regulations (2003, p. 7) define procurement to
include property disposal, as follows: “Procurement” means the buying,
purchasing, renting, leasing, or otherwise obtaining of any commodities or services.
It also includes all functions that pertain to the obtaining of any public
procurement, including description of requirements, selection and solicitation of
sources, preparation and award of contract, disposal of commodities, and all phases
of contract administration. Procurement as an organizational process is intended to
ensure that the buyer receives goods, services, or works at the best possible price
when aspects such as quality, quantity, time, and location are compared (Weele,
2010).
From the concepts discussed, it is clear that the act of shopping involves
interaction and a transaction between two individuals: the buyer and the seller. The
buyer is someone who needs to shop and has the money to spend, while the seller is
the one who offers the products or services that the buyer wants. Additionally, the
ideas suggest that shopping includes steps like comparing options, making a choice,
and finalizing an agreement. Particularly in situations where the purchases are
significant in quantity or price, the buyer often invites several sellers to take part in
order to evaluate and choose the best option. This method is known as bidding,
where the buyer is called the tenderer and the sellers are known as bidders.
According to Viet Nam Bidding Law 2023, Bidding means the process of
selection of contractors to conclude and perform contracts on provision of
consultancy services or non-consultancy services, procurement of goods or
construction, or to conclude and perform business investment project contracts on
the basis of ensuring competition, fairness, transparency, economic efficiency and
accountability.
4
The process of bidding is how an investor chooses a contractor who fits their
needs. Contractors need to provide goods and services that have fair prices and
good quality so that the investor can improve their profits. This procedure is guided
by six key principles: competition, fairness, transparency, publicity, economic
efficiency, and accountability. This research will concentrate on looking at the
principle of accountability in the bidding process.
1.1.2. Benefits of bidding activities
The process of bidding provides numerous significant advantages to those
who submit tenders. It encourages greater initiative, decreases reliance on a single
contractor, guarantees efficient project advancement, and conserves time, expenses,
and resources. By engaging in bidding, the tenderer can discover the best options
regarding both cost and quality. This approach also contributes to the improvement
of their team’s skills and the broadening of their network of suppliers. When
managed well, the bidding process can elevate the tenderer’s standing in the
marketplace and reveal possible alternative goods.
Different bidding types each present unique benefits. Open bidding fosters a
competitive environment, enabling the selection of the most suitable choices based
on price and quality. Limited bidding is ideal for complicated projects that demand
advanced technical specifications, aiding the tenderer in managing contractor
abilities and minimizing quality concerns. Direct contracting streamlines the time
and expenses linked with conducting a bidding process and is generally used for
urgent or specialized tasks. E-bidding boosts clarity, minimizes administrative
tasks, and eases record-keeping. In summary, the bidding process serves as a
valuable method for enhancing the tenderer’s advantages while contributing to
market growth.
For contractors, engaging in bidding is vital for growth and widening
business prospects. It heightens initiative, generates employment opportunities, and
encourages business expansion. Actively participating in bidding and successfully
securing contracts can significantly improve a contractor’s reputation in the
marketplace. This process allows contractors to examine their competition, make
enhancements, and explore further collaboration possibilities. Additionally, bidding
5
enables contractors to better understand international bidding rules and provides
easier access to tenderers and prospective clients. This connection helps them stay
updated with market tendencies and changing product demands.
Contractors can reap advantages from various bidding approaches as well.
Open bidding opens doors to numerous projects and market growth, benefiting
especially new companies. Limited bidding allows for competition among a
specific group, enhancing the chances of success when the contractor meets
specified criteria. Direct contracting is usually awarded to established and
trustworthy contractors, thereby lessening competitive strain. E-bidding decreases
costs related to printing and transport while enhancing response efficiency and
transparency during the bidding process. Overall, bidding represents a valuable
strategy for maximizing the advantages for contractors while encouraging market
progress.
1.2. Principle of accountability in bidding activities
1.2.1. Accountabilities
Article 8, Clause 2 of the 2015 Law on the Supervision Activities of the
National Assembly and People's Councils stipulates: "Accountability is the act of
relevant agencies or individuals explaining and clarifying their responsibilities in
the performance of assigned tasks and powers as required by the supervising
entities specified in this Law." According to Clause 5, Article 3 of the 2018 AntiCorruption Law, accountability is defined as follows: “Accountability is the act of
authorized agencies, organizations, units, or individuals clarifying information,
explaining in a timely and comprehensive manner about their decisions and actions
while performing assigned duties and public tasks”.
Political scientists consider accountability as an obligation owed to
individuals in authority and as a means of preserving democratic control over state
power. Accountability is seen from the standpoint of public finance as a way to
promote openness and transparency. From an anti-corruption standpoint,
accountability serves as a deterrence by subjecting violators to negative outcomes.
Accountability is seen as one of the four pillars that support good governance from
the standpoint of public government. Accountability, as viewed by civil society
6
organizations, is a component of monitoring the actions of civil society
organizations (CSOs) or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with respect to
society and individuals in positions of authority.
Accountability is demonstrated in various fields and with different subjects.
In the healthcare sector, accountability is carried out by healthcare facilities and
medical staff when providing information about services and policies at hospitals to
patients and the community, aiming to ensure the quality and safety of healthcare
services and improving community health. Additionally, healthcare facilities are
also responsible for explaining how financial resources are used to relevant
individuals and organizations to ensure that expenditures are effective. In the field
of education, accountability is highly emphasized because it is a key area for
national development. In this context, spending and investment in the country’s
education system must be clearly explained by the responsible agencies, such as the
government or the Ministry of Education and Training. Furthermore, according to
the amended Law on Higher Education 2018, it is explicitly stated that
“Accountability means that higher education institutions are responsible for
reporting and providing transparent information to learners, society, management
agencies, owners, and relevant parties regarding their compliance with legal
regulations and fulfillment of commitments and regulations.” Thus, implementing
accountability is essential to ensure transparency in the operations of agencies and
organizations.
1.2.2. Accountabilities in bidding activities
In bidding activities, the implementation of accountability is an important
part that helps clarify the decisions and actions related. This ensures transparency,
fairness, and protection of the interests of all parties involved, while also
preventing potential disputes and complaints in the future.
Accountability in bidding activities is reflected in the way individuals and
organizations responsible present the necessary information to relevant
stakeholders. The aspects of accountabilities can be demonstrated in various ways,
from information transparency through the public disclosure of information related
to the bidding process, including bids, evaluation criteria, and the selection results
7
of contractors, to the explanation of decisions, providing clear and reasonable
justifications for decisions made during the procurement process, especially those
regarding the selection or rejection of contractors. In addition, ensuring that all
bidding activities comply with legal regulations on procurement, as well as the
strict monitoring and oversight of the process, must also be implemented rigorously
and in accordance with the law.
The stakeholders involved in accountability include the competent persons,
the investor, the procuring entity, the contractor, the procurement expert team, and
the procurement evaluation team. According to Clause 10, Article 77 of the 2023
Bidding Law, the competent persons are responsible for explaining the
performance of the responsibilities specified in this Article at the request of
superior agencies, inspection and examination agencies and state management
agencies in charge of bidding activities. Accordingly, the competent persons must
carry out important responsibilities in the procurement process, including
approving the overall plan and contractor selection plan as prescribed in Articles
36, 40, and 41 of this Law. They are responsible for organizing the appraisal of
plan contents, handling violations by suspending or canceling tenders (if specified
in Article 17), and not recognizing the contractor or investor selection results.
Moreover, the competent authority must resolve complaints, monitor and supervise
the procurement process, and ensure contract implementation. In contractor
selection, they adjust the investor's tasks if they fail to meet the requirements,
request the submission of documents for verification, and handle complex
situations. In investor selection, they approve the bidding documents, selection
results, sign contracts, and manage the execution process.
Based on Article 78 of the 2023 Bidding Law, the investor is accountable for
the implementation of responsibilities such as: approving and organizing the
appraisal of important contents, such as the contractor selection plan (including
cases of procurement before project approval), expressions of interest, bidding
documents, shortlists, and contractor selection results; signing or authorizing the
signing of contracts with contractors, managing contracts, and making payments as
agreed; establishing tendering parties or hiring consultants if the personnel are not
qualified; handling emerging situations, resolving complaints, and maintaining
8
confidentiality throughout the procurement process; storing documents in
accordance with regulations, reporting the annual procurement situation, and
canceling tenders if violations are discovered; ensuring IT infrastructure for eprocurement, and being responsible for the accuracy of information posted on the
National Procurement Network System and other legal obligations.
According to Article 79 of the 2023 Bidding Law, the procuring party is
accountable for the implementation of contractor and investor selection. In
contractor selection, the responsibilities are as follows: preparing contractor
selection; organizing contractor selection; organizing the evaluation of expressions
of interest, prequalification documents, bids, and proposals; establishing the expert
team when the tendering party is a consultant selected by the investor; requesting
contractors to clarify their documents during the evaluation process; approving the
prequalification documents, bids, request for proposals, bidding documents,
shortlist, and contractor selection results; negotiating (if any) and finalizing
contracts with contractors, and managing contract implementation (if any);
negotiating (if any) and finalizing framework agreements with contractors, and
managing their implementation in centralized procurement; ensuring confidentiality
of information and documents during the selection process. In investor selection,
the responsibilities include: preparing investor selection; organizing investor
selection; organizing the evaluation of bids in accordance with the law; establishing
the expert team; requesting investors to clarify their bidding documents during the
evaluation process; approving bidding documents and the investor selection results;
negotiating contracts with investors; signing and managing contracts with investors
when authorized; canceling tenders as stipulated in Clause a, Article 17 of this
Law; maintaining confidentiality of information and documents during the investor
selection process; storing information related to investor selection in accordance
with regulations on archives and this Law; resolving complaints during investor
selection; reporting on the annual procurement situation; and being accountable
before the law and competent authorities for the tasks assigned.
The procurement expert team is accountable for the preparation of bidding
documents, expressions of interest, prequalification documents, and the evaluation
of various types of documents, as well as maintaining the confidentiality of related
9
information and documents. The appraisal team is responsible for accountability
during the appraisal process as prescribed in Article 81 of this Law. Contractors
and investors are responsible for accountability upon the request of the competent
authority, investor, tendering party, inspection agencies, or state management
agencies regarding procurement activities.
1.2.3. Procedures for performing the accountabilities
The process of accountability outlined in Articles 10 to 12 of Decree No.
59/2019/ND-CP, which provides specific rules and measures for enforcing the
Anti-Corruption Law, consists of various steps.
The first step involves requesting an explanation. A contractor, regulatory
body, or other interested parties can ask for clarification about the contractor
selection process, criteria for bid evaluation, or the decision regarding bidding
outcomes. Such requests can be made either through a written document or verbally
at the relevant agency or organization. Those making written requests need to
clearly outline the issue that requires clarification, include their complete
information, and provide a signature or fingerprint confirmation. For verbal
requests, the contractor or involved parties need to articulate their concerns directly
to the designated person. If there are multiple contractors questioning the same
matter, they must choose a single representative, and this selection should be
recorded with signatures or fingerprints from all parties involved. The individual
receiving the request is tasked with accurately documenting the request's contents
and generating a confirmation document for it.
The subsequent step is to handle the received explanation request. Once the
responsible agency or organization receives a request related to bidding, it will
determine if it can be processed. If the request does not fall under its authority, the
recipient must direct the contractor or concerned party to the correct agency.
Should the request lack necessary information, the recipient is obliged to ask the
requester to supply the missing details. In cases where a similar request has been
previously handled, the recipient will provide a copy of the earlier response to
maintain transparency. Regulations stipulate that within five working days of
receiving the request, the responsible agency must send a written notice regarding
10
whether the request will be processed, along with the reasons for their decision. In
the context of bidding, this procedure aims to provide contractors with timely
updates, thus minimizing extended disputes or complaints.
The last phase involves giving a clarification. The clarification in bidding
can happen either in person or through written form, depending on how
complicated the issue is. In simpler situations, the person in charge might answer
right away and make a note of the response. For situations that are more
complicated, the steps involve gathering and confirming relevant information,
collaborating with the requester for further understanding if needed, recording
conversations with signatures or fingerprints, producing an official written
clarification, and sending it to the requester. The written clarification should clearly
include the requester's name and address, the details of the request, any outcomes
from direct discussions (if relevant), the legal reasoning behind the clarification,
and a thorough explanation. A properly managed clarification process enhances the
openness of bidding activities and helps reduce issues like fraud or conflicts of
interests.
The timeline for giving clarifications is strictly set to avoid unnecessary
delays that could impact the bidding process. Per Article 13 of Decree No.
59/2019/ND-CP, the clarification process should be finished within 15 days from
the date of the confirmation that the request was received. If the matter is
complicated, a one-time extension may be allowed, but it cannot exceed an
additional 15 days, and the requester needs to be informed in writing. Furthermore,
any pause period according to Clause 1, Article 14 will not count towards the time
allotted for explanations. This practice in bidding ensures that involved parties have
sufficient time to address concerns without interrupting the selection of contractors
or the execution of the project.
During the clarification process related to bidding, certain situations may
lead the responsible individual to temporarily halt the clarification. This could
happen when the requester has died without a legal heir, when an organization has
been dissolved or merged without any successor, or when the requester has lost
legal capacity and there is no appointed legal representative. In cases where
contractors or others encounter legitimate reasons such as illness or natural
11
disasters, the clarification process may also experience a temporary suspension.
After the reason for the halt is resolved, the clarification will continue.
During the clarification process related to bidding, certain situations may
lead the responsible individual to temporarily halt the clarification. This could
happen when the requester has died without a legal heir, when an organization has
been dissolved or merged without any successor, or when the requester has lost
legal capacity and there is no appointed legal representative. In cases where
contractors or others encounter legitimate reasons such as illness or natural
disasters, the clarification process may also experience a temporary suspension.
After the reason for the halt is resolved, the clarification will continue.
12
CHAPTER 2: CURRENT SITUATIONS
2.1. Current situations of bidding activities in Hai Phong city
Hai Phong is one of the six centrally governed cities of Vietnam. It is a class-1
national urban area comprising 7 districts, 6 rural districts, and 2 island districts, with
a total of 223 communes, wards, and towns. For a long time, Hai Phong has been
known as the largest seaport in the North, a vital transportation hub with a network
of waterways, roads, railways, and airports connecting both domestic and
international routes. It is the main gateway to the sea for Hanoi and the northern
provinces, as well as a key transportation center for the Northern Key Economic
Region, located on two economic cooperation corridors with Vietnam and China.
For this reason, Hai Phong has been identified as a growth pole of the Red River
Delta region's economy in Vietnam's socio-economic development strategy, serving
as the economic, scientific, and technical center of the Northern Coastal Region, and
as one of the development centers of the Northern Key Economic Region and the
entire country (Decision No. 1448/QĐ-TTg dated September 16, 2009, by the Prime
Minister).
As a city with a developed economy, Hai Phong attracts many investors both
domestically and internationally. From 2018 to 2022, the number of investment projects
in Hai Phong showed a significant increase, despite the negative impacts of the COVID19 pandemic. In 2018, there were 14,088 projects, and by 2022, this number had
increased to 17,500 projects. This figure has continued to rise in recent years, with the
implementation capital in 2024 estimated at VND 211,481 billion, an increase of
10.09% compared to the previous year and a 0.71% increase compared to the plan for
the year. The proportion of projects in high-tech fields, processing, manufacturing, and
logistics invested in industrial parks and economic zones in Hai Phong accounts for over
77%.
With such a large number of projects, bidding activities in the city have also
been strongly promoted. In addition to the legal documents issued by the state, such as
the 2023 Law on Bidding, Decrees No. 23 and 24/2024/NĐ-CP, the People's
Committee of Hai Phong has also issued legal documents related to bidding, such as
Decision No. 2089/QĐ-UBND Hai Phong 2024 on the list of newly issued
administrative procedures in the field of bidding in Hai Phong, or Resolution No.
13
13/2024/NQ-HĐND dated November 11, 2024, on the criteria for deciding to carry
out bidding to select investors for investment projects involving land in Hai Phong.
This shows that the local government has paid great attention to bidding activities,
with timely legal frameworks issued to support the implementation of investment
projects.
Along with these achievements, the city still faces some challenges in the
bidding process. According to Resolution No. 01/NQ-CP in 2019 and Circular No.
11/2019 of the Ministry of Planning and Investment, the roadmap for applying
online contractor selection from 2019 to 2021 should ensure a minimum ratio for
packages under public bidding or competitive offers, reaching 50%, 60%, and 70%,
respectively. However, in reality, the number of online bidding packages in the city
was only 111/2800 in 2019, 261/2683 in 2020, and 376/8049 in 2021, achieving only
a rate of 3.9% to over 10%. These numbers are quite modest and do not meet the
roadmap goals. Furthermore, in centralized procurement, Hai Phong had the lowest
savings rate in the country in 2020, with a rate of 0%, far below the national average
of 11.59% and much lower than provinces like Ha Nam (37.43%), Bac Giang
(36.94%), and Tuyen Quang (34.01%) which achieved savings rates above 30%.
Moreover, there are still violations and unresolved issues in the bidding process.
Through an inspection of 18 land-use projects in Hai Phong from 2021 to 2023, the
Government Inspectorate found 11 projects with shortcomings in planning.
Additionally, 2 projects were found to have issues with the selection of investors for
housing projects. The Inspectorate also found 3 projects with deficiencies in land
allocation and lease. Some projects were even allocated land to investors that fell
outside the scope of infrastructure projects not intended for residential use.
2.2. Current situations of implementing the principle of accountability in
bidding activities in Hai Phong
Implementing the principle of accountability in bidding is extremely
important. In general, the implementation of accountability in the bidding process
by the involved organizations and individuals follows the correct procedure.
However, in Hai Phong, there are still some violations in implementing this
principle. A typical example is the bidding package for the construction and
14
installation of equipment for the "Renovation and Beautification of Dam Vuong
Park, Hai Son Ward, Hai Phong City" project. The project was approved by the Hai
Phong People's Committee in 2002, and the Đo Son District People's Committee
approved a revision once on December 26, 2016, with a total investment of nearly
VND 29 billion from the central budget. However, due to issues with land
clearance and funding, the project remained inactive for many years, with many
parts deteriorating. On July 20, 2023, Hai Phong People's Committee issued
Decision No. 2109/QĐ-UBND approving the investment policy for the project
based on the current condition of the park, with a total area of 82,882 m² and a total
investment of more than VND 68 billion. The project was approved as Group C on
January 16, 2024, with 80% of the funding from the city budget and 20% from Do
Son District.
On August 7, 2024, the Do Son District Project Management Board (Ban
QLDAĐTXD) issued the bidding documents for the package No. 06: "Construction
and installation of equipment for the Renovation and Beautification of Dam Vuong
Park, Hai Son Ward, Do Son District". This bidding package was publicly bid
online in Vietnam with a bid price of over VND 60 billion, and the closing date for
bids was August 19, 2024. Four large contractors participated in the bidding
through the national bidding system with varying bid prices, with savings for the
state budget ranging from 0.3% to 12.26%. Based on the bid opening results, the
contractor to be selected for the project was identified.
However, on October 14, 2024, the Do Son District People's Committee
issued Decision No. 1764/QĐ-UBND to cancel the bidding for Package No. 06,
stating: "All E-Bidding technical proposals did not meet the requirements of the Ebidding invitation." Consequently, Package No. 06 was canceled according to the
provisions of Clause 1, Article 17 of the 2023 Law on Bidding.The issue is that the
investor did not notify the contractors via email or official documents, nor did they
specify the errors made by the contractors on the national bidding system.
However, the decision to "cancel the bidding for Package No. 06" was issued. On
the same day, October 14, 2024, the Do Son District Project Management Board
issued a new bidding invitation for Package No. 06, and contractors were again
invited to submit bids publicly through the national bidding system.
15
Thus, the project owner's decision to cancel the bidding without notifying or
providing an explanation to the contractors violated the principle of accountability in
bidding, causing confusion for the contractors and wasting time in the contractor
selection process.
16
CHAPTER 3: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SOLUTIONS
3.1. Solutions
Enhancing the Capacity and Awareness of Accountability in Bidding
One of the causes of the formal or even neglected implementation of
accountability in bidding in Hải Phòng is the limited awareness of officials
regarding the role and legal necessity of accountability in the bidding process.
Many officials regard accountability as a non-essential step, or are unclear about
the deadlines, content, and the responsible persons for carrying it out. To address
this, the city should organize regular training sessions on the Bidding Law
(especially Article 92 - Regulations on Accountability) and integrate accountability
into the performance evaluation criteria of bidding officials. For instance, in the
process of inviting tenders for medical equipment procurement at district-level
hospitals, the city could require the organization of accountability briefing sessions
for the experts and tendering parties before issuing the bidding documents. This
would ensure that they understand their accountability responsibilities from the
start and minimize future complaints.
Clear Regulations on the Deadlines, Content, and Forms of Accountability
A common limitation in post-bidding accountability in Hải Phòng is the lack
of standardized forms and failure to adhere to the prescribed response deadlines. In
many cases, the contracting authority responds late, with superficial answers that
seem to be merely a formality or even does not send any response to the contractor.
To resolve this issue, Hải Phòng should establish a standardized accountability
procedure to be applied consistently throughout the city, clearly defining the
content that needs to be explained: the basis for the bidding documents, noncompliance issues, exclusion criteria, and the legal basis. Additionally, a maximum
accountability deadline should be set at no more than 5 working days, in
compliance with the 2023 Bidding Law. For example, for a construction project for
infrastructure in Kiến An district, if a contractor is disqualified and submits a
complaint, the expert team should have a written report that fully explains the
evaluation criteria, signed by the evaluation committee members and confirmed by
the tendering authority, rather than just stating vague reasons like “did not meet
technical requirements.”
17
Strengthening Transparency and Openness After Bidding
Lack of transparency is one of the primary causes of problems in postbidding accountability in Hải Phòng, leading to contractors disagreeing with the
results and lodging complaints. To overcome this, it is necessary to implement
transparency principles in all stages after bid opening, including: publicizing the
bid evaluation minutes, the technical scoreboards, the reasons for disqualifying
contractors, and the accountability process if any. A practical measure would be to
require the investors to post all accountability documents and responses on the
National Bidding Network System so that contractors and the public can
independently monitor. For instance, for a bidding package on the construction of a
district office building, after the contractor submits a technical evaluation
complaint, the tendering authority should not only send a direct response but also
make the response public on the official portal, along with the evaluation
documents, to ensure transparency and minimize suspicions of “internal
preferences.” This approach not only strengthens the trust of participants but also
enhances the local government’s image of transparent management.
Establishing internal and independent oversight mechanisms in post-bidding
ccountability
Post-bidding accountability only becomes meaningful when it is
independently and objectively supervised, rather than being solely executed and
assessed by the tendering party. In many localities, including Hải Phòng, there is
still a lack of specific internal oversight mechanisms for the accountability process,
resulting in responses often being one-sided and lacking cross-checking. To
improve this, the City People's Committee should assign the Department of
Planning and Investment or the City Inspectorate to establish an independent
oversight team for bidding processes, including assessing how entities perform
their accountability duties after bidding. Additionally, a "periodic accountability
report" mechanism could be piloted, requiring Project Management Units (PMUs)
and tendering entities to list all the complaints received, responses issued, and the
handling status. For example, in 2024, if a unit like the PMU of urban traffic
projects has more than five complaints from contractors but no corresponding
accountability reports, the oversight team should examine the records and request a
18
follow-up explanation. This mechanism will help prevent “token responses” and
encourage tendering entities to be more responsible for their legal obligations.
3.2. Recommendations
Supplement detailed guidelines on accountability in subordinate Legal
Documents
Although the current Bidding Law (especially the 2023 Bidding Law)
addresses the accountability responsibilities of the contracting authority and the
investor, there is currently no subordinate legal document that provides specific
guidance on the procedure, forms, and mechanism for fulfilling the post-bid
accountability obligation. This lack of detailed instructions leaves local units,
including those in Hải Phòng, confused or led to follow their own methods, which
lack consistency and transparency. To address this issue, it is necessary to
recommend that the Government and the Ministry of Planning and Investment issue
a specialized Circular that provides clear guidance on post-bid accountability,
specifying the following: Steps to implement accountability (When, By Whom,
Using which forms), Specific response timeframes and penalties for violations,
Responsibilities for coordination between the expert team, tendering authority, and
investor.
Building a national public query and tracking system for post-bid
accountability
One significant weakness in the current bidding management system is the
lack of a centralized, public tool to monitor the post-bid accountability process.
Although the National Bidding Network System (muasamcong.mpi.gov.vn) has
digitized many functions, such as issuing bidding documents and publishing
contractor selection results, it currently does not have a specific section for
disclosing documents related to accountability, complaints, and responses between
the involved parties. This results in fragmented monitoring, a lack of a systematic
approach, and difficulty for contractors to check the processing progress, while
higher-level authorities lack a basis to track the quality of accountability responses.
To address this, the Government and the Ministry of Planning and Investment
should urgently research and integrate the “Post-Bid Accountability Query Feature”
into the National Bidding Network System. This feature would allow for: each
19
tender package to have a dedicated section displaying the status of complaints and
responses, all accountability documents to be uploaded and assigned a file number,
the system sends automatic alerts if the deadline for a response is missed.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, ensuring accountability in bidding activities in Hai Phong
Province is essential for fostering transparency, fairness, and efficiency in
procurement process. By strengthening legal frameworks, improving awareness,
and establishing clear procedures for post-bid accountability, Hai Phong can
address existing challenges and build a more trustworthy bidding environment. The
implementation of systems for monitoring and tracking accountability, along with
enhanced public access to bidding information, will help prevent fraud, reduce
disputes, and promote greater confidence among both investors and contractors.
Ultimately, reinforcing accountability in the bidding process will contribute to the
sustainable economic development and governance of Hai Phong, aligning with the
province's vision of becoming a key growth hub in northern Vietnam.
20
REFERENCES
1. Báo Thanh tra. Đồ Sơn (Hải Phòng): Có “khuất tất” việc huỷ gói thầu để đấu
thầu lại ? <https://thanhtra.com.vn/dieu-tra-10061C5CA/do-son-hai-phongco-khuat-tat-viec-huy-goi-thau-de-dau-thau-lai--19E3B518D.html>
2. Baodautu.vn. (n.d.). Hải Phòng, Quảng Ninh thu hút 7,82 tỷ USD vốn FDI.
<https://baodautu.vn/hai-phong-quang-ninh-thu-hut-782-ty-usd-von-fdid240692.html>
3. Dự án cải tạo, chỉnh trang công viên Đầm Vuông (quận Đồ Sơn): Khởi động
lại trong tháng 9-2024. (n.d.). <https://baohaiphong.vn/vi/quan-do-son/duan-cai-tao-chinh-trang-cong-vien-dam-vuong-quan-do-son-khoi-dong-laitrong-thang-9-2024-2024728111509.htm>
4. Đào Thị Thu Trang, Nguyễn Thạch Đăng (2024), Thực trạng thu hút đầu tư
phát triển kinh tế biển: Trường hợp TP. Hải Phòng, Tạp chí Kinh tế và Dự
báo
5. Laffont, Jean-Jacques; Tirole, Jean (1993). A Theory of Incentives in
Procurement and Regulation
6. Lê Gia Phong (2024), Thành phố Hải Phòng – Điểm sáng trong thu hút đầu
tư năm 2023, Ta ̣p chí Con số & Sự kiêṇ
7. Lloyd, R. E., & McCue, C. P. (2004, October). What is public procurement?
Definitional problems and implications. In International Public Procurement
Conference Proceedings (Vol. 3, pp. 2-18).
8. Luật Đấu thầu 2023, ban hành ngày 23 tháng 6 năm 2023, Hà Nội
9. Luật Hoạt động giám sát của Quốc hội và Hội đồng nhân dân 2015, ban hành
ngày 20 tháng 11 năm 2015, Hà Nội
10.Luật Phòng chống tham nhũng 2018, ban hành ngày 20 tháng 11 năm 2018,
Hà Nội
11.Nghị định số 23/2024/NĐ-CP, ban hành ngày 27 tháng 02 năm 2024, Hà Nội
12.Nghị định số 24/2024/NĐ-CP, ban hành ngày ngày 27 tháng 02 năm 2024,
Hà Nội
13.Nghị quyết 01/NQ-CP 2019, ban hành ngày 01 tháng 01 năm 2019, Hà Nội
21
14.Nguyễn Thanh Tùng (2021), Thực hiện trách nhiệm giải trình trong lĩnh vực
giáo dục ở Việt Nam: Nhu cầu và giải pháp, Tạp chí Pháp luật và Thực tiễn,
số 47/2021
15.Nguyễn Thanh Tùng (2024), Thực hiện trách nhiệm giải trình thúc đẩy công
bằng y tế vùng biên giới đất liền ở Việt Nam: nhu cầu và giải pháp, Tạp chí
Khoa học và Công nghệ Trường Đại học Hòa Bình, Số 12 - Tháng 6.2024
16.Thông tư số 11/2019/TT-BKHDT, ban hành ngày ngày 16 tháng 12 năm
2019, Hà Nội
17.Thông tư số 11/2019/TT-BKHĐT, ban hành ngày 16 tháng 12 năm 2019, Hà
Nội