Guyana
Former auditor general Anand Goolsarran has flayed the National Pro-curement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) over its apparent role in what could be a conflict-of-interest situation now that investigations into allegations of financial impropriety against Deputy Commis-sioner (ag) of Police Calvin Brutus have also placed a company allegedly owned by his wife under scrutiny.
Not naming Brutus, Goolsarran wrote in his weekly ‘Accountability Watch’ column published in the Stabroek News today: “Media reports indicate that the officer’s wife set up a company about a year ago, which company became one of suppliers of the Police Force with the full knowledge of senior officials of the Ministry of Home Affairs… the Public Procurement Commission should also be involved in the investigation in keeping with its mandate.
“What is most distressing is that the NPTAB offered no objection to the company being included in the list of suppliers for the force. It is not clear whether the NPTAB carried out the necessary background checks before offering its no objection. Such checks would normally include a scrutiny of the incorporation and other documents to ascertain, among others, how reputable the company is, who are the real owners, whether there is any connection with members of the force, and any other matters that may pose a conflict of interest. If the NPTAB did not conduct such checks, it would have been guilty of a serious dereliction of duty.”
Contacted yesterday, NPTAB Chairman Tarrachand Balgobin told Stabroek News that he was out of the country but referred this newspaper to CEO Arvin Parag, who said he would address questions today.
In July, Home Affairs Minister Robeson Benn informed that the allegations of financial impropriety made against Brutus were being investigated by the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU).
Last week, President Irfaan Ali told reporters that SOCU was handling the matter with regard to the Brutus case and he would not intrude.
Ali’s stance was echoed by Commissioner of Police (ag) Clifton Hicken, who also said that SOCU was an independent agency and had been given unrestricted scope to do its work.
Goolsarran said that since SOCU was also a part of the Guyana Police Force, “it would have been more appropriate for the Audit Office to undertake a forensic audit of the matter.”
As regards the NPTAB, he said that there have been several calls by the public and accountability observers for its complete reorganisation so that it can be seen as independent of government control and influence. “However, our pleas have so far fallen on deaf ears,” he contended.
Goolsarran pointed out that allegations of irregularities in the disciplined services were not new as successive reports of the Auditor General over the years have highlighted mismanagement and irregularities in the use of public resources.
“It is sad to note that over the years, both the Guyana Police Force and the Guyana Defence Force have been the major violators of the financial rules and regulations as well as the procurement procedures, without evidence of any sanctions being imposed on the perpetrators. Instead, they are being handsomely rewarded, especially with a one month tax free bonus at the end of the year to the exclusion of public servants, teachers, nurses and other categories of government employees,” he said.
Going back to 2003, Goolsarran noted that it was reported that there were numerous breaches in the Tender Board Regulations. In particular, there was evidence of contract-splitting to avoid adjudication by the then Central Tender Board. This practice resulted in irregularities in excess of $50 million in the purchase of uniform material.
He related that further details, as gleaned from the Auditor General’s report for 2003, indicated: “(a) Amounts totalling $168.514 million were expended on the purchase of items of uniform, including uniform material. However, there was no evidence of the involvement of the Central Tender Board. In fact, there were 279 purchases totalling $145.926 million falling within the limits of $180,000 and $600,000 which would have been adjudicated by the Departmental Tender Board. It is evident that the purchases were divided into lots of on average $523,000 to bring them within the limits of the Departmental Tender Board. (b) An examination of the Departmental Tender Board minutes relating to the above purchases revealed that there were no minutes for 102 transactions valued at $58.316 million, although there was reference to such minutes on the payment vouchers. Further examination of the foolscap book in which the minutes were kept revealed that the preparation of minutes was discontinued in June 2003. In addition, the minutes were not written by the Secretary of the Tender Board but by a junior rank who was not part of the proceedings of the Tender Board. These observations would raise doubts as to whether or not meetings were actually held, especially in view of the fact that there were no details relating to the opening bids and the discussions that followed leading to the award.
more
Image pexels-ekaterina
Read more
Guyana
police were responsible for list with questionable bidder
SOCU has acquired documents relating to procurement for the Guyana Police Force (GPF) from the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) as it continues its investigation of financial impropriety claims against Deputy Police Commissioner Calvin Brutus.
NPTAB has also made it clear that the list of prequalified bidders for the GPF that it received from the Ministry of Home Affairs last year, and which has on it a company allegedly linked to the Brutus’ wife, is a standard document it receives from respective procuring entities with names of companies reviewed that could bid but only the evaluation of tenders determines who is awarded a contract.
Reliable sources told Stabroek News that the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) had asked NPTAB for records and documents on GPF procurement and contract awards. These documents, one source explained, were handed over but the Board was not informed about the investigations.
In July, Home Affairs Minister Robeson Benn informed that the allegations of financial impropriety made against Brutus were being investigated by SOCU.
Last week, President Irfaan Ali told reporters that SOCU was handling the matter with regard to the Brutus case and that he would not intrude.
Ali’s stance was echoed by Commissioner of Police (ag) Clifton Hicken, who also said that SOCU was an independent agency and had been given unrestricted scope to do its work.
Former auditor general, Anand Goolsarran, has stated that NPTAB may be guilty of dereliction of duty in the case of allegations of financial impropriety against Brutus which has also placed a company allegedly owned by his wife under scrutiny.
He posited that the Public Procurement Com-mission should also be involved in the investigation in keeping with its mandate.
“What is most distressing is that the NPTAB offered no objection to the company being included in the list of suppliers for the Force. It is not clear whether the NPTAB carried out the necessary background checks before offering its no-objection. Such checks would normally include a scrutiny of the incorporation and other documents to ascertain, among others, how reputable the company is, who are the real owners, whether there is any connection with members of the Force, and any other matters that may pose a conflict of interest. If the NPTAB did not conduct such checks, it would have been guilty of a serious dereliction of duty,” Goolsarran wrote in his Accountability column this week.
No dereliction
However, Chairman of NPTAB, Tarachand Balgobin, contended that there was no dereliction of duty by the entity as the disciplined services carries out its pre-qualification screening process of companies and sends the documents to NPTAB to add to the list of bidders. He said that NPTAB then sends its no-objection of the names of the prequalification pool back to the procuring entity.
Balgobin pointed out that a company being prequalified by an agency does not equate to a company’s right to obtain a contract as winning a tender is determined through the independent evaluation process for which the most responsive bid wins.
more
image pexels-pixabay-
Read more
Trinidad and Tobago
A former director of the Sports Company of T&T Limited (SporTT) has claimed that he and his 13 fellow former board members were obligated to facilitate a $34 million contract for the controversial Life Sport programme, which subsequently failed.
Testifying in the state company’s ongoing breach of fiduciary duty case against the former board members before Justice Ricky Rahim at the Waterfront Judicial Centre in Port-of-Spain, Tuesday, accountant Matthew Quamina claimed that he and his former colleagues were instructed that SporTT was merely the payment “agent or provider” for the Ministry of Sport.
Quamina maintained that the ministry and a committee of officials assigned to the programme were responsible for all aspects of it besides payment of creditors.
“Although the contract was in SporTT’s name, it was directed by the Ministry of Sport,” he said.
He repeatedly denied that he and his former colleagues were required to deeply scrutinise the contract.
Quamina also admitted that before the contract was signed, he did question whether it contained an “exit” clause.
However, he admitted that he did not follow up on whether such was included, as he said that was SporTT’s chief executive, John Mollenthiel, and the ministry’s responsibility.
“It was not my role to see that contract,” he said.
Dealing with a recommendation that eBeam Interact Limited be given the contract to administer the numeracy and literacy and the interactive technology components of the occupational skills training aspect of the programme based on a sole select tender, Quamina suggested that such was the ministry’s suggestion.
“The CEO would have been in communication with the ministry, the permanent secretary, and the minister,” he said.
Quamina also admitted that after eBeam failed to perform its full obligations and demand full payment, he questioned whether the contract could be amended or terminated and legal advice was sought.
“Any reasonable person would have asked the questions they did not ask two years before,” he said.
“The board would have been seeking clarity and guidance,” he added.
Quamina claimed that he and his colleagues were not concerned by the initial proposal submitted by eBeam, which referred to services to be offered to infants and teenagers when the programme was intended for men aged 16 to 25.
“Our role was not to question the Ministry of Sport over a social programme for the national community,” he said.
Also testifying yesterday was former director Sabrenah Khayyam, who currently serves as senior manager at the Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA).
Like Quamina and the other former directors, who testified since last Friday, she denied any wrongdoing in relation to the contract.
In the lawsuit, the company is claiming that its former board acted negligently and recklessly in entering the contract.
The defendants in the case are Mollenthiel and ex-directors Sebastien Paddington, Chela Lamsee-Ebanks, Reynold Bala, Norris Blanc, Nisa Dass, Dr Anyl Gopeesingh, Cheemattee Martin, Quamina, Annan Ramnanansingh, Kent Samlal, Harnarine Seeram Singh, and Milton Siboo.
On August 22, High Court Judge Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell rejected SporTT’s breach of contract case against eBeam but ordered it to pay $30 million in restitution as she ruled that it was unjustly enriched for services it did not provide.
While SporTT was seeking the entire value of the contract, Justice Donaldson-Honeywell deducted $4 million, which represented the nominal services inclusive of the procurement of equipment provided by eBeam.
“It would be legally unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit of $34 million when only the minimum value, unrelated to any substantial delivery of the bargained-for services, was received by the claimant under the contract,” Justice Donaldson-Honeywell said.
“The minimal services provided by the defendant did not meaningfully meet the benefit that was intended by the parties to be delivered to the claimant,” she added.
eBeam still has the option to appeal the outcome.
SporTT has contended that the case against eBeam has no bearing on the parallel litigation against the group.
Colin Kangaloo, SC, John Lee, and Stephanie Moe are representing SporTT.
The group’s lawyers include Fyard Hosein, SC, Anthony Vieira, SC, Rishi Dass, SC, Jagdeo Singh, Karina Singh, Keston Lewis, Roger Kawalsingh, Ravi Mungalsingh, Tara Bhariosingh, Nicole de Verteuil-Milne, Adrian Ramoutar, Sushma Gopeesingh, Kamini Persaud-Maraj, Neal Bisnath, Lydia Mendonca, Richard Jagai, Andrea Bhagwandeen, and Dharmendra Punwassee.
The case is scheduled to continue later today with the evidence of two more directors.
more
Image: pexels-mateusz-dach
Read more
