Competence has no age; let’s stop punishing new businesses

A prevailing misconception in public discussions is that a company's age determines its competence. This is an outdated view. An older firm, despite holding multiple certifications and having a solid history, may still lack the necessary resources, personnel, financial capacity, or technical ability for a specific task. Conversely, a recently established business may possess all these elements.

The critical inquiry should be straightforward: Can the company complete the job, and can it verify its ability to do so? This principle remains pertinent irrespective of political affiliations, the specific company in question, or the surrounding controversy. Take, for instance, a seasoned engineer who has spent three decades working for the Ghana Highway Authority or a prominent construction firm.

Upon resigning, he launches his own construction company. He procures essential machinery, hires seasoned engineers and technicians, secures the required legal classifications, and proves sufficient financial capability. Should his company be deemed incompetent merely because it is six months old? Has his 30 years of engineering expertise vanished the moment he founded a new entity?

Certainly not. The same reasoning applies globally. Upon securing a radio station's frequency and fulfilling all regulatory requirements, must it initially broadcast from within its studios for ten years before it is deemed experienced enough to accept advertising? When a new bank meets the Bank of Ghana's capital, governance, technology, and regulatory standards, and receives a license, must it initially accept deposits solely from the directors' families for several years before serving the public?

When an airline obtains its operating license, aircraft, qualified pilots, engineers, insurance, and all requisite safety certifications, must it initially operate empty aircraft for five years before accepting paying passengers? Such a scenario would be ludicrous. Yet, we sometimes adopt a similar approach to entrepreneurship and public contracts.

There are valid grounds to examine a freshly established company awarded a significant public contract. Government must verify beneficial ownership, technical capability, financial strength, equipment, personnel, prior experience of key professionals, regulatory compliance, and the company's capacity to execute the specific assignment.

Procurement procedures must also adhere to the law and ensure value for money. However, scrutiny should not equate to prejudice. Being a new business is not proof of incompetence any more than being an established firm is evidence of competence. In fact, if Ghana aspires to cultivate a robust entrepreneurial economy, we must be cautious not to create an environment where past successful companies are automatically entitled to future opportunities.

Every established Ghanaian company was once a new company. If newcomers are consistently denied substantial work due to their lack of longevity, how are they expected to amass the track record that qualifies them for significant contracts? This creates a vicious cycle: you cannot secure the contract because you lack history, and you cannot build history because no one will grant you the contract.

This line of thinking benefits incumbents rather than fostering entrepreneurship. Instead, our focus should be on quantifiable capacity. Who are the individuals behind the company? What have they accomplished individually in the past? What equipment and systems are available? Which technical personnel have been assembled? Does the company possess sufficient financial capacity?

Have the statutory requirements been met? Is the procurement method lawful? Is the price competitive and defensible? Can taxpayers receive value for money? These are crucial questions. We must separate two vital debates. Whether a particular public contract was procured appropriately is one issue. Whether a newly incorporated company is inherently unqualified to undertake substantial work is another.

The former merits thorough investigation. The latter is fundamentally flawed economics. Ghana requires more entrepreneurs, more engineering firms, more manufacturers, more technology companies, and more young businesses ready to challenge the status quo. We cannot advocate for entrepreneurship constantly and simultaneously foster a culture that automatically suspects new businesses.

Assess companies based on competence, capability, compliance, capacity, and value for money. Consider longevity as supplementary evidence where relevant, not a substitute for competence. And certainly not an obstacle to enterprise.