Tendering leakages continue
Date: June 3rd , 2019
Dear Editor/Newsroom,
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Act, 2015 is finally operationalised yet billions in contracts continue to be awarded without any transparency. Is the Board functioning effectively?
This legislation was intended to ensure oversight, provide a control mechanism and warrant transparency of Government’s spending. Governments corruption history of choosing contractors, acquiring billions in ferries, Coast Guard vessels and helicopters without tendering is known. This Government has finally selected the Procurement Regulator and the Board of the Office of Procurement Regulation yet it seems nothing has changed. We hereby submit an example to show that the Board is not effective.
Certain companies are favored for the majority of Government awards depending on which political party is in power and tenders still not advertised and are sent to selected companies. This shroud of exclusivity reeks of suspicion, exposes treasury vulnerabilities and begs the question, is the Procurement Board doing their job? If the Act is weak, the regulators will be ineffective.
Tender invitations were recently sent out by UdeCott at 4.03pm on 9th May from the Tender Secretary. The deadline for submission is 2pm, 10th May. The required tender for textile fabric lacks product specifications and no tender committee could determine a choice without specifications or actual samples. As a textiles expert for over 40 years, this is an engineered tender by a seasoned practitioner. No tender selection committee could select if tender requirements lack specifications and only describes vague requirements (such as “green fabric, chairs” or “fabric of choice (lounge chairs)”). The awardee could supply anything because there are no specifications or sample requirements. Additionally, to fulfill the vague a-specific tender requirement in less than a working day is unreasonable.
Is this an example of Government agencies pre-selecting tenderers with appropriate private benefit, and then going through the motions of inviting several tenderers?
Despite the long awaited Procurement Board, it would appear that UdeCott already have preselected, pre-favored suppliers for each tender, and now are camouflaging unscrupulous conduct by fulfilling the protocol of sending out several tender invitations.
We publicly call on our PM to explain an apparently ineffective Procurement Regulator and Board of the Office of Procurement Regulation. Tendering haemorrhages must be a national priority.
Are we better off today with this weak ineffectual Act? In our respectful view, the Act should be revisited. There are provisions excluded from our Act which address obligations for the publication of rules, procedures, opportunities, modifications, notices, specifications, conditions, criteria and invitations in the tender process. According to the UN Procurement Practitioner’s Handbook, deviations from best practice approaches in procurement ethics (like the substantial gaps which exist in our Act), can introduce ethical risks in the procurement process, including “conflict of interest, fraud, corruption, coercion and collusion”. Intentionally removing these obligations not only creates room for unethical practices, corruption opportunities and risks in the procurement cycle, but allows for the entire procurement process to become compromised as it appears. Fishermen and Friends of the Sea is therefore calling on PM Rowley to take another look at the Public Procurement Act so as to ensure transparency and accountability in the use of public funds and the award of government contracts.
Where senior management or political leaders turn a blind eye or behave dishonestly, corruption and fraud will spread to every level.
Sincerely,
Gary Aboud
Corporate Secretary