Contract Management as a Mechanism Linking Stakeholder Pressure to Procurement Performance in a Ugandan Local Government

Public procurement performance depends not only on stakeholder demands but also on the administrative mechanisms through which those demands are translated into contract results. This study examined whether contract management mediates the relationship between stakeholder pressure and procurement performance in Bushenyi District Local Government, Uganda. A cross-sectional mixed-methods design was adopted. The quantitative population comprised district personnel involved in procurement governance and contract implementation, including the accounting officer, contracts committee, procurement and disposal unit, and user departments. Of 103 questionnaires distributed, 82 usable responses were obtained, representing a 79.6% questionnaire response rate. Four of ten planned key-informant interviews were completed. Stakeholder pressure was operationalised through power, legitimacy and urgency; contract management through contract planning, monitoring and vendor appraisal; and procurement performance through competition, efficiency, effectiveness, economy and environmental considerations. Regression results showed that stakeholder pressure significantly predicted procurement performance, R² = .619, adjusted R² = .614, F (1, 80) = 129.760, p < .001, and contract management, R² = .710, adjusted R² = .706, F (1, 80) = 195.604, p < .001. Contract management also predicted procurement performance, R² = .700, adjusted R² = .696, F (1, 80) = 186.517, p < .001. When stakeholder pressure and contract management were entered jointly, explained variance rose to 72.3%, while the standardised coefficient for stakeholder pressure declined from β = .787 to β = .282 but remained significant (p = .012); contract management remained significant (β = .599, p < .001). The pattern is consistent with partial mediation under the study's regression-based procedure. The results suggest that stakeholder scrutiny is associated with better procurement outcomes where contract planning, monitoring and vendor appraisal are stronger. The study recommends contract-specific monitoring plans, key performance indicators, risk registers, timely performance reports, management action on audit findings and systematic end-of-contract vendor appraisal. Because the original analysis did not estimate a bootstrapped indirect-effect confidence interval, future studies should apply PROCESS Model 4 or structural equation modelling and use longitudinal, multi-district data.