Multiple regions flagged for engaging in restricted tendering

ꟷ instead of open tendering; AG says regions breached Procurement Act

A perusal of the 2018 Audit Report shows that many contractors may have been robbed of a chance for work, as a number of regional administrations invited select contractors to bid for works in restricted tendering, rather than open tendering as the law sets out.

According to the Auditor General Deodat Sharma in his report, Regions number One, Five, Eight, Nine and 10 were found to have breached the Procurement Act by awarding contracts while incorrectly using restricted tendering.
“Breaches of the Procurement Act were discovered where contracts were incorrectly awarded using Restricted Tendering instead of National Competitive Bidding. In addition, contracts were also incorrectly awarded using the three-quote method of procurement,” the report states.
The Audit Office noted that in the case of Region One, when a contract for repairs to the Port Kaituma Teachers’ Quarters was awarded, there was no evidence that this contract was advertised. Amounts totalling $6.6 million was paid to the contractor as of December 31, 2018.
The Audit Office explained that when the project was checked, the contractor was found to have been overpaid. When given a chance to respond, the regional administration assured that the engineer would be written to for a response. The Audit Office also found general issues with monies allocated for maintenance.
“The sum of $427.480 million was allocated for maintenance works. As at 31 December 2018, the sum of $427.459 million was expended. Included in this amount is the sum of $183.198 million expended on maintenance of buildings,” the report says.
“An examination and analysis done on Payment Vouchers, contracts and related tender documents revealed three instances totalling $12.492 million, where the contract documents and Payment Vouchers were prepared and paid to the contractor at a higher price than what the contracts were awarded for by the Regional Tender Board.”
According to the Audit Office, there was no evidence that these contracts had approved variation. It was noted that as a result, it was unclear on what basis the regional administration prepared contracts exceeding the amounts approved by the Tender Board.
In its response, the administration promised that the engineer would be written to, requesting an explanation. In its recommendation, the Audit Office urged that the regional administration ensure that all contracts awarded are prepared for the same amount as that approved by the Tender Board.