Contractor refunds money for Region 6 controversial bulldozer

The contractor who had supplied a smaller, used bulldozer to the Region Six Administration instead of a larger and brand new one has repaid in full the money received because the Regional Democratic Council (RDC) has refused to accept the bulldozer supplied.
On January 4th this year, controversy broke out at the RDC when councillors began questioning the condition of this machinery that supposedly was recently purchased.
In its 2017 budget proposal, the administration had proposed the purchase of a large bulldozer to shape dams in the rice cultivation area, and to render assistance

to cash crop farmers. The bulldozer was touted to reduce the cost of constant repairs being effected on those dams. With this in mind, $15 million had been proposed for the purchase of the bulldozer. The proposal was approved in the 2017 National Budget.
However, on January 4, when controversy erupted over the specifications and condition of the bulldozer supplied, Regional Executive Officer (REO) Kim Stephens told the RDC that the bulldozer was not yet part of the region’s property, because the administration was waiting on the supplier to hand over the registration.
Even then, this publication had reported being in receipt of information that the bulldozer supplied had been paid for in full although no inspection certificate had been issued.
Less than one week later, the REO told reporters at a press conference at her office that the used bulldozer which was recently purchased was indeed the property of the regional administration, although only four days prior she had denied that the machinery was the property of the regional administration.
The supplier was paid $8 million for mobilisation, and a further $6.7 million was paid on December 28, 2016.
The REO told reporters at her press conference that the money was approved by Cabinet for a D3 bulldozer, and that the proper procurement procedure had been followed.
When it met on January 4, the RDC had called for an investigation to be launched into the procurement of this bulldozer; but even before the investigation, it was discovered that what was supplied was not what had been stipulated on the contract, and the supplier was asked to deliver what he was contracted to supply. He, however, claimed he could not source such a piece of equipment for the price agreed upon. After much public criticism of the old equipment purchased, a decision was taken for the contractor to take back the bulldozer and repay the money.
The REO, meanwhile, appeared before the Public Accounts Committee on the issue and admitted that the required procurement procedure was not followed in purchasing the bulldozer.
While apologising for the error, the REO had said it was not deliberate, but was rather an act of oversight; and promised there would be no recurrence. (Andrew Carmichael)