Breaking News: Government Bans Brand-Specific Procurement, Citing Unfair Competition and Price Gouging
In a bold move to level the playing field, Namibia’s Public Procurement Unit (PPU) has issued a groundbreaking directive: all public entities must immediately stop using specific brand names in procurement bids. But here’s where it gets controversial—this decision, announced on November 27, 2025, aims to tackle inflated pricing and the perception of favoritism, but it’s already sparking debate among procurement professionals. Could this be a step too far, or the much-needed reform the system requires?
Phineas Nsundano, head of the PPU, stated, “Using brand names in procurement distorts competition and can lead to unfair practices, including the appearance of corruption. It shuts out equally capable or superior suppliers from even entering the bidding process.” This directive, addressed to all public entities and accounting officers, underscores the need for fairness and transparency in government spending.
And this is the part most people miss: The PPU isn’t just banning brand names outright. According to clause 2.2.14 of the Public Procurement Guidelines, brand-specific references are only acceptable in exceptional circumstances. Even then, the bidding documents must explicitly state that ‘equivalent’ products are also welcome. The catch? These exceptions must be backed by detailed, evidence-based justifications to ensure accountability.
The PPU’s decision comes in response to a troubling trend: public entities increasingly specifying particular brands, especially in vehicle procurement. Nsundano explained, “This practice undermines the core principles of public procurement—fair dealing, transparency, integrity, and competitive supply.” Instead, procurement specifications should focus on performance, functional, or technical requirements. For example, when buying vehicles, details like engine size, payload capacity, fuel efficiency, and safety ratings should take center stage, ensuring a fair competition among all suitable products.
Nsundano emphasized that this Instruction Note must be shared with all internal procurement teams and departments, with immediate reviews of ongoing bids to ensure compliance. Accounting Officers are reminded of their responsibility to enforce this directive under section 25(l)(b) of the Public Procurement Act.
A private sector procurement manager, speaking anonymously, praised the move, calling it a “corrective directive” that aligns with the Act’s principles. However, they urged the PPU to standardize Vehicle Procurement Bidding Documents, highlighting a pressing issue: unregistered entities, often without the overhead costs of registered dealerships, are winning multimillion-dollar tenders. “This skews the procurement landscape and disadvantages legitimate dealerships,” the manager noted. They advocated for physical dealership visits and on-site product evaluations to ensure accuracy and integrity in the process.
But here’s the counterpoint: A public sector procurement manager, also anonymous, cautioned against overlooking practical considerations. “Factors like reliability, maintenance, and fuel consumption matter. Sometimes, specific brands are justified for specific purposes,” they argued. “Procurement isn’t just about compliance—it’s about balancing cost and value. Namibia needs to evolve beyond checkbox procurement.”
This directive raises a critical question: Can the PPU’s approach strike the right balance between fairness and practicality? Or does it risk oversimplifying a complex process? We want to hear from you—share your thoughts in the comments below. Is this the future of procurement, or a step too far?
For more insights, reach out to ebrandt@nepc.com.na. The conversation is just beginning.
