The manner in which drugs and other materiel associated with the delivery of services at the state-run health care institutions in Guyana are acquired has long been the subject of animated public chatter that often alights upon the subject of the circumvention of tender regulations and excursions into what are believed to be optional corrupt practices. These discourses have, from time to time, implicated well-placed public functionaries believed to be ‘in tight’ with political operatives whom, it is felt, give the green light to corruption-driven practices. What has, over time, lent currency to alleged corrupt practices in the health sector that assign lucrative contracts without adherence to tender procedures is the fact that the investigations into alleged irregularities rarely if ever appear to be prosecuted with any real sense of vigour and diligence, a circumstance that has led to the widespread view that there is usually no great eagerness to probe discrepancies and find guilty parties. Over time, those who fret over tender irregularities resign themselves to the notion that the arbitrary circumvention of laid down tender procedures is part of what is loosely described as ‘the capture of the state’ by those who hold the reins of power.
We do not have to go too far back to discover that the manner in which a particular private sector entity made a ‘pretty penny’ out of being a favoured purchaser of drugs ordered by the Government of Guyana, an arrangement that was underpinned by the blatant evasion of the state tender process. What applied instead was an open regimen of ‘deals’ in which the state functionary/functionaries entered into bilateral arrangements with pre-determined buyers and from which those functionaries reportedly benefitted handsomely. One might add of course that other state agencies have also been known to circumvent National Procurement and Tender Administration procedures in arrangements which are said to involve bribes and kickbacks.
Two points should be made at this juncture. First, of course, there can arise circumstances of an emergency nature that give rise to the need to circumvent the tender process in the interest of a timely response to emergencies within the health system. In such cases it is absolutely important that we ensure that the departure from standard practice is attended by a generous measure of fairness and transparency. Indeed, in circumstances where the customary tender process has to be set aside to respond to an emergency then there is all the more reason why the circumstances must be verified and properly documented. Whether any such documentation customarily takes place is unclear.
The second point to be made here is that state purchases for medical supplies to meet the needs of our health services regularly run into hundreds of millions of dollars and it is therefore not difficult to see where once you set aside the tender procedure leaving the arrangements to an alternative regime there is a good chance that you could end up with a situation that is vulnerable to all sorts of irregularities. We have, over the years, grown used to those stories of one sort or another regarding ‘deals’ in which businesses have been favoured to supply drugs and other medical equipment in a manner that has given rise to a regimen of kickbacks from which backroom manipulators have benefitted. By this time we know enough to be aware that some of those stories are entirely true.
… more
Image: Gatis Gribusts (flickr)
Read more
Political interference will not be condoned when the Recovery and Development Agency (RDA) is selecting contractors for the various recovery projects to be done during the next few years.
RDA Deputy Chairman Clarence Faulkner issued the warning last Friday during the Agency’s first official ‘invitation to tender’ forum. Persons were invited to bid for a major debris removal project to be done on Jost Van Dyke and Tortola.
Faulkner said while the RDA has been given the mandate to execute the territory’s recovery plan, it is solely responsible to develop procurement procedures and approve contracts.
“We are not central government. There is no sense going to a political figure and saying ‘see what you can do for me’,” he said.
“What is going to happen is we are going to look at every engagement, every contract, every supplier, and say, ‘do they meet the credentials that are outlined to execute this?’” he explained.
Debris Clearance
Now 10 months after the 2017 disasters, Manager of the Department of Waste Management Greg Massicote said his department has developed “a plan to remove as much debris as possible”, especially since the territory is in another hurricane season.
… more
Image: DFID (flickr)
Read more
Over the last two weeks or so, the print media have been carrying reports of another apparent irregularity in the procurement of drugs and medical supplies at the Ministry of Public Health. This time, the procurement relates to the supply of pharmaceuticals, including, 27,040 bottles of metformin 500mg tablets, 63,804 of 2% lidocaine injections, 49,303 diclofenac 1% 30g gel, 28,232 propofol 10mg/ml injections, 16,951 bottles of acetylsalicylic acid X1 tablets, and 12,392 bottles of 75mg diclofenac tablets. The supplier, HDM Labs Inc. of Island Park, New York, was chosen using the restricted method of procurement, and the contract was awarded in the amount of US$1.790 million, equivalent to G$366.9 million.
Readers will recall that in February 2017 a similar controversy erupted in the emergency procurement from ANSA McAL of $605 million in drugs and medical supplies for the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC). Apart from a breach of the Procurement Act, there were a number of concerns about the prices of certain items supplied, compared with those charged by other pharmaceutical suppliers. In the midst of public criticisms, the GPHC’s board investigated the matter and concluded that the Chief Executive Officer acted “recklessly” in initiating the procurement but no evidence was found that the Minister of Public Health gave any instructions for the procurement procedures to be bypassed. The Public Procurement Commission (PPC) carried out its own investigation and also exonerated the Minister.
Background information about HDM Labs Inc.
… more
Image: SimonQ (flickr)
Read more
Several high priced projects executed under the last Government did not go to tender as was required.
This revelation came yesterday in the House of Assembly during the debate on the Integrity in Public Life Bill. Piloting the debate on the promised and much anticipated Bill yesterday, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Dale Marshall maintained that to prevent a repeat of such, since coming to office just over six weeks ago, they have been “drilling into the minds” of the new Cabinet Ministers that the Financial Management and Audit Rules must be followed. Further, he disclosed they have had “full dialogue” with the Permanent Secretaries and Heads of Department, to ensure that there is an understanding going forward, that Barbados intends to follow Financial Management and Audit Rules, which he explained requires a public tendering process for any contract worth more than $200,000.
“We also have to insist that the rules for Government procurement are followed and are transparent because if the rules of Government procurement are followed and are transparent then the entire process of offering a Government contract will be done under the light of day and under the bright sunshine of transparency there is little opportunity for corrupt practices to grow,” he said.
The Attorney General raised the issues, as he told the Lower House that under the previous administration a contract worth almost $20 million was awarded for the construction of high rise housing units at Valery, St. Michael without going to tender. He added that a similar situation occurred with respect to other units including those at Exmouth Gap, St. Michael.
… more
Image: sbj04769 (Pixabay)
Read more
The island’s sole water company broke its own tendering rules when it awarded a multi-million dollar contract for the leasing and purchasing of several water tankers during the 2016/2017 financial year, Auditor General Leigh Trotman has discovered.
Trotman said in his report released earlier this month, that through a public tender the Barbados Water Authority (BWA) requested bids for the acquisition, through either lease or purchase, of four tankers to assist with its water distribution efforts throughout Barbados.
He concluded that the BWA had acquired the tankers “under circumstances in which the tender process did not comply with its policies, as the contract was awarded to a company which did not meet all the necessary tender conditions”.
“The Barbados Water Authority deviated significantly from compliance with its procurement policies and procedures in the sourcing and tendering practices for the purchasing and leasing of the water tankers,” Trotman concluded, adding that “the tender process was compromised from the time the bid from firm 2, who did not meet the qualifying criteria, was examined”.
He did not name the firm involved, or either of the two other firms that submitted tenders. Only one of the three firms met the qualifying criteria for leasing and purchasing, the auditor general said.
This notwithstanding, the BWA’s evaluation committee decided to examine the proposals of the firm which met the tender conditions, as well as a firm, which he referred to as firm 2, which did not supply a lease proposal as required by the tender.
Although the recommendation was made for the BWA to award the contract to firm one, the Audit, Finance and Tenders committee requested that both firms submit revised prices by February 2015.
While firm 1 submitted a response within the required time frame and a revised price was disclosed at the board meeting on February 12, firm 2 submitted its response in a document dated March 13, 2015, with a lower bid, and ending up winning that tender, the audit found.
Notwithstanding the decision to purchase four water tankers, the BWA board was subsequently asked to approve the leasing of eight tankers from firm 2, at a monthly cost of $60,000 plus Value Added Tax for five years.
Although the approval was granted at the board meeting on November 5, 2015, the lease with the company for eight tankers had already been signed before the request went to the board.
What is more, the time period agreed for the lease of the arrangement was 63 months, three months more than what the board was asked to approve.
While the agreement would have allowed the BWA to stagger the payments over the five years, the purchasing of the tankers would have required an immediate outlay of $2.44 million.
… more
Image: Hilary Halliwell (Pexels)
Read more
