Premier Paula Cox’s promise that there will be no repeat of the Transport Control Department construction saga is welcome, as is her suggestion that she would welcome an independent review of the project. Indeed, Ms Cox’s language is telling. She described the findings of the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee as “sobering” and said the process was “found wanting”.Ms Cox also said many of the problems that arose with the project have already been addressed, and noted the problem of reports like the PAC’s coming about well after the fact, along with the related media reporting. That is so. But many of these problems were in fact reported on while the project was underway and immediately thereafter, and at the time, almost nothing was done publicly to address or acknowledge them.And Ms Cox again faces the challenge that she cannot draw a line between the previous administration and her own because she was so central a figure in the previous administration. She cannot pretend she was not there, or that she had no influence, cogs in the wheel notwithstanding. Instead, she artfully compared this project to the Airport and Westgate, projects undertaken by the United Bermuda Party government (more than 20 years ago in the case of the Airport) and ignores projects like the Berkeley Institute, and other no tender projects carried out under the Progressive Labour Party government in the past 13 years.Indeed, it would be good to hear from the Government about more recent projects such as the Heritage Wharf and the Port Royal Golf Course, where costs exceeded budgets and where questions were raised about the tender process. Of course, Ms Cox is right that the Airport project was substantially revised between first conception and when it went out to tender. But that was not the whole story. There were multiple other problems with it, which hopefully were learned from.In the case of TCD, the question must be asked whether the changes that were made, such as the fairly obvious environmental risks that would need to be assessed due to the facility’s proximity to the Marsh, and the decision to locate the Ministry headquarters in the building, could not have been considered earlier in the planning process. Hopefully the new Procurement Office will be able to manage those kinds of issues better.It is important to note that none of these concerns relate to the actual operation of the facility, which, at least from the customer’s point of view, has improved immeasurably. That demonstrates that there are areas of government that are much better run by the private sector. But the TCD experience shows that that process needs to be managed carefully. Having the contractor of the plant also build it when it is wholly taxpayer funded and where oversight, in this case, at least, contained flaws, is clearly risky.If the private contractor is going to build the plant, it might be better for the contractor to fund it as well, and to be paid back by Government over a period of time, as is often the case with public private partnerships. This would ensure that costs are tightly controlled, although oversight would need to be exercised to ensure there was no cost cutting.It is hard not to have some sympathy for someone who has a good idea and brings it to Government, only to see it given to someone else after an open tender project. It may be that when Bermuda Emissions Controls Ltd was given the TCD project, the Transport Ministry was trying to avoid this scenario. But it is hard to see how it can be avoided, without giving rise to constant suggestions of insider dealing and nepotism. That’s why the concept that all projects above a certain size should be handled by an independent procurement office or Contractor General (the One Bermuda Alliance’s idea) is a good one.In any bidding process when price is not the sole criterion (and it rarely should be) someone will be upset when they lose. The only way to reduce that is to ensure that the process is as fair, transparent, free from interference and independent as possible.