Can smarter public procurement build Bangladesh’s next tech giants?

There is a perception going on in the industry that the government likes to buy from foreign countries instead of building things locally. There might be some truth to this, but also some exaggeration. 

The government has been working to develop several homegrown industries over the years, including IT, software, and pharmaceuticals. However, this perception still persists. 

One reason for this is that although the government promotes industrial development through various programmes, funding initiatives, and policy dialogues, the challenge ultimately comes down to market demand. The key question is: Who will buy these products, and who will use them? 

I have been working in the ICT sector since 1995 and have personally benefited from government policies that supported its growth. I can say with confidence that, without such policy support, I would not have been able to sustain myself as a young entrepreneur. 

However, after more than 30 years in the industry, I have come to a clear realisation — access to funding is not the primary challenge.

Many young people come to me and say, "Mr. Forkan, I want to build different products or ideas. Where can I get the funding?" 

My response is usually, "Even if you secure funding and develop the product, what comes next? Where will you sell it, and who will be the buyers? Can you compete with lower-cost producers such as China while maintaining sustainability? If not, how will the business survive in the long term?" 

For Bangladesh, the strongest pathway is not to follow any one country blindly, but to take a practical combination of what has worked in Singapore, South Korea, China, Germany, and Turkey. We need to identify our national priority sectors and use them as anchor markets for local technology companies.

For most startups, the real challenge is not creation but commercialisation.

This is where a public procurement policy model for industry development becomes critical.

For many Bangladeshi ventures, securing government contracts often becomes essential for sustainability in the current economic environment. 

Relying solely on private sector demand can be risky. However, this overdependence on government procurement can also create conditions where governance challenges and corruption risks increase.

In some cases, firms engaging in unethical practices may gain an advantage in securing contracts and grow rapidly, while those that avoid such practices may struggle to survive. Despite these issues, dependence on public procurement remains a structural reality that cannot be easily avoided.

So, what to do now? 

We need to create a playing field that is fair for everyone, while ensuring it incentivises the development of local technology instead of foreign procurement.

For Bangladesh, the strongest pathway is not to follow any one country blindly, but to take a practical combination of what has worked in Singapore, South Korea, China, Germany, and Turkey. We need to identify our national priority sectors and use them as anchor markets for local technology companies.

The government is already spending huge amounts of money on power, transport, defense, digital government, health, agriculture, manufacturing, and infrastructure. The question is: Are we using this spending to build our own capability? Or are we just buying finished products from outside?

If we are serious about industry development, this public spending must be structured in a way that builds local capability in engineering, automation, electronics, embedded systems, cybersecurity, software, manufacturing, and product development.

The policy model can be thought of like this: Public Procurement → Local Participation → R&D → Technology Transfer → Reverse Engineering → Local Manufacturing → Product Development → Export Capability.

In practical terms, every large national project should have a mandatory local participation component. Not just symbolic participation, but meaningful work.

This may include software customisation, system integration, ownership of data, local hosting, cybersecurity audit, source-code escrow, maintenance, support, future upgrades, and involvement of local engineers. 

It should also include proper documentation transfer, testing capability, and design-level understanding — not just operational training.

For the hardware and industrial sectors, we have to move step by step. 

We cannot jump directly to full manufacturing. The journey typically starts with import, then moves to semi knocked down and completely knocked down assembly, then printed circuit board assembly, then firmware ownership, embedded system design, subsystem development, reverse engineering, and finally full product development and export readiness.

We also need to be careful about what we call "technology transfer".

Many countries have had technology transfer clauses in contracts, but very few have actually built real capability from it. Just getting some documents or training sessions is not enough.

Technology transfer should mean that our engineers understand the design, the system logic, the manufacturing process, and the testing methods. It should lead to local ownership of knowledge and eventually ownership of the product itself.

Where it is legally and commercially possible, reverse engineering should be encouraged. This is how many countries have learned and advanced. The goal is not just to assemble; the goal is to understand and then build.

At a national level, we should think in terms of focused missions. For example: Smart Grid Bangladesh, Intelligent Transport Bangladesh, GovTech Bangladesh, Defense Technology Bangladesh, Industrial Automation Bangladesh, Smart Agriculture Bangladesh, HealthTech Bangladesh, Advanced Manufacturing Bangladesh.

Each of these should bring together government agencies, universities, local companies, engineering firms, manufacturers, financial institutions, and research organizations—with clear targets for building local capability.

Another important area is how we design systems.

Instead of giving everything to one large vendor, especially in software and digital infrastructure, we should encourage a distributed model. 

Different qualified local companies should be able to build different parts of the system, as long as they follow common standards and can work together.

The same idea applies to hardware and industrial systems. Local companies should be encouraged to develop specific subsystems rather than depending fully on turnkey imports.

However, certain things must remain under strong central control—such as payment systems, audit, cybersecurity, data governance, standards, and regulatory oversight. This ensures discipline while still allowing broad participation.

This approach reduces vendor lock-in, increases competition, and creates opportunities for many local companies while keeping national control intact.

Ultimately, the objective is very clear, technology sovereignty.

We cannot continue with a project-by-project mindset. Bangladesh is already investing heavily across multiple sectors. That spending should not just build infrastructure—it should build our own industrial and technological capability.

If public procurement is aligned properly with local research and development, university collaboration, technology transfer, reverse engineering, and manufacturing capability, then we can create our own national technology champions.

Otherwise, we will continue to depend on foreign vendors and imported systems, no matter how much we invest.

Forkan Bin Quasem is the managing director of Spectrum Engineering Consortium (Pvt) Ltd. He has 30+ years of experience in Bangladesh's ICT Industry. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.