Region 6 Tender Board breaches Procurement Act

Dear Editor,
Procurement Act 2003, is intended ‘to promote fairness and transparency in the procurement process’, but the Region 6 Tender Board has failed to give effect to the legal provisions provided therein. The Tender Board has also failed to provide fair and equitable treatment to all suppliers and contractors. Despite the fact that the Procurement Act specifies that certain standardized features and requirements relating to the characteristics of the good to be procured many dietary and other items are tenderedwithout due diligence to this requirement(Section 13). This has resulted in a potpourri of substandard goods being procured. The Act also makes it clear that contractors who have supplied substandard goods in the past should be disqualified but unfortunately this has never seen the light of day in Region 6.
Despite the fact that Section 39(6)(a) makes it pellucid that ‘all evaluation criteria for the procurement of goods, works and services in addition to price, will be qualified in monetary terms and the tender will be awarded to the lowest evaluated bid’, There are circumstances where this subsection has been blatantly violated, attesting to cronyism and corruption. For instance, in the case of the repairs to Whim Branch Road, the Engineer’s estimate was,,058,104 but the contractor with the lowest bid of ,507,720 was not awarded that contract. It was given to another contractor who bid ,968,364. Another instance is the case of the repairs to Black Bush Public Road-Johanna Three Bridge. The Engineer estimated this work for ,043,749 and the lowest bid was for ,446,492 but again the award of the contract was given to the same contractor as before who bid at ,829,661 and not the lowest bidder.In addition to the above, the Procurement Act provides that contractors who were not successful should be notified by the Regional Tender Board as to the reasons why their bids were not successful. This was never done and this constitutes a clear violation of the Procurement Act. This question was raised at the RDC meeting on 4th July but no reason (s) was given by the Chairman of the Tender Board or any of the members who were present.
There is also evidence to support incidents of conflict of interest where the son of a Works Committee member bids for contracts on behalf of his father. This matter has been confirmed by the Chairman of the Tender Board who acknowledged that bids were received from that person. This is the type of cronyism and corruption which will destroy progress in the Region. Additionally, there is an urgent need for a forensic audit of the Tender Board in Region 6 to dig into these practices of the Tender Board. The records of the proceedings, the awards of contracts and the background and experience and qualifications of these contractors should come under microscopic scrutiny.

Yours sincerely,
Haseef Yusuf
Regional Councillor-Region 6