Every public tender eventually produces a winner. What receives far less attention, however, is an equally important question: who was allowed to compete in the first place?
Recent public discussion surrounding qualification requirements in port operations has brought this question into focus. While individual procurement processes must be assessed on their own facts and under the applicable rules, the broader policy issue deserves attention. How qualification criteria are designed can shape competition long before technical proposals are evaluated or financial bids are opened. This is not merely a procurement issue. It is an issue of governance.
Bangladesh depends heavily on Chattogram Port for its international trade. Its efficiency affects exporters, importers, manufacturers, shipping lines and ultimately consumers. The country is rightly investing in terminals, equipment, transport connectivity and digitalisation. Yet a modern port also needs a modern institutional framework that governs who can provide critical services and on what terms.
Many people assume competition begins when a tender is advertised. In reality, it starts earlier. Qualification requirements determine the universe of eligible competitors. Procurement then determines the winner from within that universe. In other words, qualification shapes the starting line.
No one would argue that complex port operations should be entrusted to inexperienced firms. Cargo handling, terminal management and ship operations require specialised expertise, appropriate equipment, trained personnel, financial capacity and a strong safety culture. Experience must therefore remain a central consideration. The more difficult policy question is how relevant experience should be defined and recognised.
The regulatory framework governing cargo and container operations at Chattogram Port contains technical, operational and financial requirements intended to protect service quality and operational reliability. The purpose is legitimate and necessary. Ports cannot experiment with untested capability where failures may disrupt national trade.
But qualification frameworks, like all regulations, should be periodically reviewed as markets, technology and industry capabilities evolve. A requirement that was appropriate at one stage of development may later need refinement – not necessarily because its original purpose was wrong, but because the surrounding market has changed.
Bangladesh has a much broader logistics industry than two decades ago. Inland container depots, container freight stations, shipping agencies, freight forwarders, cargo handling companies and other logistics service providers have invested in equipment, technology, skilled personnel and internationally accepted operating practices. Not all such experience is identical to operating a seaport terminal, nor should it automatically be treated as such. But a mature qualification framework should distinguish between experience that is irrelevant and experience that is genuinely comparable or transferable.
The same principle applies internationally. Ports around the world increasingly rely on specialised operators whose experience may have been accumulated across different jurisdictions and operating environments. The relevant question should not simply be where an organisation has worked, but what it has actually done: the scale and complexity of operations managed, cargo volumes handled, equipment deployed, safety performance achieved, technology used and service standards maintained.
Recognising equivalent experience does not mean lowering standards. Properly designed, it can do the opposite. Qualification criteria can remain rigorous while assessing competence through measurable outcomes rather than relying excessively on a single pathway through which experience must have been acquired.
This distinction matters because healthy competition depends not only on the number of firms currently operating in a market. It also depends on whether capable firms have a realistic opportunity to challenge for future contracts.
Economists describe this as contestability. A market may have relatively few operators and still retain competitive discipline if credible challengers can enter when contracts are renewed. The possibility of competition encourages existing operators to invest, innovate and maintain service quality. Where potential challengers face unnecessarily narrow pathways to qualification, that competitive pressure may weaken over time. This is why qualification rules deserve as much policy attention as procurement procedures themselves.
Long-term operating arrangements make the issue particularly important. Port operations often require substantial investment in equipment, systems and workforce development, and operators need sufficient contractual certainty to justify such expenditure. Longer appointments are therefore not inherently problematic.
But stability and competition should reinforce each other. The longer the operating cycle, the more important it becomes to ensure that future opportunities remain genuinely contestable and that performance is assessed transparently throughout the contract period.
Bangladesh does not need to choose between experienced operators and wider competition. Nor does it need to choose between domestic capability and international expertise. A well-designed framework can accommodate all of these objectives.
Periodic regulatory review could examine whether qualification requirements remain proportionate to the actual risks of each service. Equivalent experience could be assessed against clearly defined operational benchmarks. Joint ventures or consortia could allow capable domestic firms to build experience alongside established operators. Performance records could receive greater weight in future appointments. Structured pathways could also enable emerging logistics companies to demonstrate competence without compromising safety or reliability. Such measures would not guarantee any firm a contract. They would simply ensure that eligibility reflects demonstrable capability and that the route to the starting line remains open to credible competitors.
The objective should not be to displace existing operators, many of whom have accumulated valuable knowledge and served the port for years. Nor should reform be designed around the interests of any particular bidder, domestic or foreign. The objective should be a durable regulatory framework that protects operational standards while encouraging investment, innovation and competitive discipline.
Bangladesh is entering a new phase of port development. The regulatory framework governing participation must evolve with the same care as the physical infrastructure. The best qualification rules are neither permissive nor protectionist. They are demanding, transparent and proportionate. They protect the port from inexperienced operators while ensuring that credible capability can be recognised when it emerges.
Chattogram Port’s next stage of progress will depend not only on cranes, terminals and connectivity, but also on the quality of the institutions governing them. Strong institutions maintain high standards while giving every genuinely capable competitor a fair opportunity to reach the starting line.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author
The writer is a Maritime, Logistics and Supply Chain Policy Analyst | Adjunct Faculty, Bangladesh Maritime University
