Over $264M paid for Sussex Street bond

Since 2016

– company linked to coalition financier

The responses to questions on notice from the Parliamentary Opposition to Public Health Minister Volda Lawrence on the controversial Sussex Street drug bond reveal that since 2016, the state has paid out over $200 million in rental fees.
This is one of several questions put on notice by Opposition Parliamentarian Anil Nandlall. He had sought information on the total sums paid in rent for the property.
He had also asked “what action has been taken to implement the recommendations for the contract to be renegotiated to obtain a lower rate of rental; and if not possible, the lease agreement be terminated?”
In the response tabled in the National Assembly during Monday’s sitting, Lawrence stated that from July 2016 to March 2018, the sum of $264.5 million was paid to Linden Holdings Incorporated.
This company is linked to local businessman Larry Singh, an old People’s National Congress (PNC) financier.
When it comes to action being taken to end the arrangement, Lawrence revealed that a Notice of Quit dated October 31, 2016, was sent by the then Permanent Secretary of the Public Health Ministry, Trevor Thomas.
Further, current Permanent Secretary Colette Adams had sent a reminder dated October 3, 2017. There is no mention of the company’s response to these notices. As of March, it is understood that the bond was still being rented.
The transaction first came to light in 2016 during consideration of Financial Papers, when it was discovered that Government had in fact entered a contract to pay a VAT-excluded $12.5 million monthly rental to Linden Holdings Inc for the storage of drugs and medical supplies.
It was also discovered that $25 million was already spent as a security deposit, in addition to $12.5 million, representing monthly rentals from August to December 2016. The sums were paid to the Linden Holdings Inc.
The criticism that erupted led President David Granger to set up a Cabinet sub-committee to investigate the matter and make recommendations. That committee comprised Natural Resources Minister Raphael Trotman as the Chairman, Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo and Minister of State Joseph Harmon.
That committee had concluded that the contract should be terminated or re-negotiated, since a similar facility could have been found at a cheaper rate. During the debate on the 2017 Budget in December 2016, a parliamentary delegation accompanied by the media visited the Bond and found condoms, lubricants and some unused refrigerators, but no pharmaceuticals and medical supplies.
The parliamentary opposition has since formally requested that the Public Procurement Commission investigate the transaction.
The formal request was made by former Minister within the Finance Ministry, Juan Edghill, who wrote to PPC Chairperson Carol Corbin indicating that the political Opposition was demanding “a definitive pronouncement specifically addressing if this award was done in a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective manner according to our procurement laws.”
The former Government Minister had wanted the Procurement Commission to investigate specifically how a contract for a bond for the storage of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies was sole-sourced from an entity that did not own and/or operate such a facility; and further, “how was the company’s primary director, Larry Singh, made aware that a drug bond was needed”.
Given the argument presented by the Public Health Ministry in defence of the contract, Edghill was also looking to ascertain “who made the decision to sole source, and under what circumstances; what was the emergency referred to by the Minister”, and how Linden Holdings Inc was engaged to ink a contract.
Among the other concerns listed in the request for an investigation, the Member of Parliament is questioning why the contract stipulated rental of “office space”, and not rental of a pharmaceutical bond; and whether the price was fair in terms of market value for similar facilities.
The Member of Parliament, in his list of queries to the PPC Chairperson, also questioned whether taxpayers were in fact receiving value for money on the monthly arrangement.