The manner in which the Public Infrastructure Ministry (MPI) awarded the contract for the feasibility study and design of the new Demerara River Bridge has sparked much controversy; and after a complaint was made by the Parliamentary Opposition, the entire transaction was brought under the microscope by the Public Procurement Commission (PPC).
Some months ago, Opposition Chief Whip Gail Teixeira wrote the PPC asking it to investigate the selection and award of the $146 million contract to LievenseCSO for the feasibility study of the new Demerara River Bridge, after it was revealed, and later confirmed by Minister David Patterson, that the company was sole-sourced.
Following the probe, the PPC found that the award of the contract breached certain aspects of the Procurement Act. The PPC report outlined that after some 23 companies had expressed an interest in providing consultancy services, 12 were shortlisted, and two managed to submit their proposals on time. However, Government failed to reach an agreement with either of the two companies in their negotiations, and as such, the tender was annulled.
According to the PPC report, the National Tender and Procurement Administration Board (NPTAB) then recommended that the MPI re-tender, but it did not. The PPC report went on to note that the Permanent Secretary of the MPI then “informed the Public Procurement Commission that subsequent to annulment of the tender by MPI, [Dutch Company LievenseCSO] Engineering contracting BV submitted an unsolicited proposal to provide consultancy services for the Demerara River Bridge project.”
As such, the Commission added, Minister Patterson approached Cabinet on November 18, 2016, seeking consideration and approval to use funds from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation (DHBC) to fund the feasibility study and to commence a contractual engagement with LievenseCSO as of January 1, 2017. The Commission found that there was a breach when this request to Cabinet was made by the Minister, and not through the NPTAB.
For its part, the MPI has maintained that it acted within the laws of Guyana and in the nation’s interest. However, the Ministry will have a very difficult time convincing the nation that this is indeed true. It is not the first time that the Coalition Government has come under severe fire for the manner in which it is spending tax payers’ monies.
In addition to this most recent case, there were several other examples in which the actions of the Coalition Government were found wanting. For example, citizens were made aware that two Government ministers were benefiting from full scholarships being paid for by the State only after questions were raised in the Parliament during consideration of 2017 Budget estimates. It was clear that the Administration wanted to withhold critical information such as the cost of the scholarships, who were the beneficiaries, and on what basis they were selected.
Then there was the controversial drug bond deal which saw then Public Health Minister Dr George Norton coming under severe pressure for advancing some $25 million to Linden Holding Inc for the use of the building for the storage of Government medicines. In justifying the request for the ‘emergency’ expenditure and the reasons for choosing the company selected, the minister made a number of statements in the National Assembly which were found to be inaccurate. After much public outcry, he apologised and was transferred to another ministry. Mere weeks after, the minister who replaced Dr Norton, Volda Lawrence, was not even properly settled in her new position when she was forced to defend her ministry’s awarding a $605 million drug contract under highly questionable circumstances to a foreign company. These are just some of the many cases of Government not being forthcoming with regard to utilising public funds. While we are in no way accusing Government officials of being corrupt, it is the duty of the Government to show by its actions that it is accountable and transparent.
Some time ago, President David Granger, during a book launch, was quoted in the media as saying that his Government is committed to excising corruption, improving transparency, and instituting greater accountability, all premised on the pillar of strong institutions. The Government must not only talk about being transparent, its actions should also prove that it is serious about ensuring accountability and good governance, which are the hallmarks of service. After all, it was on this very basis that its officials campaigned for the 2015 General and Regional Elections.
