There is this unspoken rule among tech vendors that says, “If you did not write or influence the bid specifications, do not even bother to join the bid.” This reality reflects how procurement processes are often manipulated from the very start, long before any bids are submitted. By shaping the ToR to favor a preferred supplier, it provides a tremendous advantage to those vendors.

This manipulative influence turns what should be a fair contest into a charade where the outcome is predetermined, undermining true competition and public trust. Understanding this devious practice is key to addressing why some procurement projects, both in government and the private sector, reportedly fail to deliver genuine value for the institution despite the appearance of due process.

I should know — before joining public service in 2006, I was a tech vendor for more than 30 years and have observed this practice, which, I have heard, is still common today.

There are other ways that the procurement can be manipulated. One common technique is to bundle the hardware costs and pad them with extra hardware, software licenses, or services that are either unneeded or far beyond actual requirements, which results in “bloatware” pricing. That way, the price details are made difficult to determine, and it makes it easy for the manipulators to play around with costings. This is referred to among vendors as the art of selling everything, including the kitchen sink.

“Bloatware” resulting from bundling serves two corrupt ends. First, it enables vendors and their inside partners to disguise inflated pricing beneath layers of legitimate-sounding additions, making it difficult for the procurement people to know what is really required. This setup also creates further dependence on the winning vendor for future upgrades since the rest of the competition has been effectively excluded. That way, institutions pay more for future upgrades, renewals, and services.

The problem is amplified by poor market price research practices, which are usually done without leaving the office. Price benchmarking can be skewed by selectively using inflated quotations from friendly vendors, creating the illusion that the awarded price is reasonable.

We also see cases of vendor collusion, which is common in infrastructure projects, as we are seeing in the current flood-control mess investigations. Even when ToRs are fair on paper, vendors sometimes collude to rig biddings. I have heard of cases where vendors enter into arrangements among themselves to take turns winning large contracts and dividing the rewards afterward.

In the tech sector, we seldom see the big brands join big government procurement projects. They leave the work to partners or system integrators who specialize in government bidding. The Philippine tech sector is a small community that makes it easier for vendors to coordinate even before the process starts. Subtle clues like repeated joint ventures or shared subcontractors can indicate deeper alliances.

The public rarely sees the machinations behind these procurement games, especially in the public sector. But the impact is immediate and tangible: wasted taxpayer funds, suboptimal technology, slower public services, and possible skepticism about whether the government can ever act in the public interest.

For the public sector, setting up the Procurement Service, which allows government entities to easily procure commonly used items, and the PhilGEPS, to centralize, record, and publicize every step of the procurement process, from bidding to contract award and delivery, are definitely moves in the right direction to make government procurement transparent. Solving the problem brought about by crocodiles, however, demands more than just the setting up of these online platforms and even new laws.

I support the use of emerging technologies like blockchain and artificial intelligence to mitigate manipulative procurement schemes. With blockchain, immutable records of bids and contracts have been seen to reduce tampering. AI-driven anomaly detection can flag suspicious pricing patterns, collusion, and even cases of “bloatware.” What I do not support, however, is legislating the technology. Remember, the Optical Media Act?

The allure of livestreaming and the use of open dashboards is undeniable. They can be effective up to a certain extent. They promise that everyone can peek inside the bidding rooms and watch the proceedings. In practice, however, these interventions can be charades, masking rather than fixing systemic weaknesses. By the time a bid is streamed, most critical decisions may have already been settled offstage.

The live session is a performance—a ritual where everything proceeds by the book, and the actors dutifully fulfill their roles. What could be missing is context—how the terms of reference were written, which vendors helped draft “technical requirements,” and how price benchmarking was manipulated to make one bid look especially attractive.

There are other proven ways to reduce the opportunity for bid manipulation to happen. But crocodiles today can be very creative in finding new schemes. Calling them by that name is unfair to the real ones.