Former transport minister Devant Maharaj wants the Integrity Commission to investigate the procurement process used in the purchase of a ferry for the sea bridge by a Cabinet appointed inter-ministerial committee.
He is also seeking answers as to when the Government made a decision to purchase a vessel “without any transparent process,” which he said “clearly violated the Central Tenders Board Act.
Detailing the sequence of events in a letter to chairman of the Integrity Commission Justice Melville Baird dated January 16, 2018, Maharaj noted that from the public statements made by the Government “the purchase of the boat was made before January 7, 2018, but after November 2017.”
Given that the Cabinet sub-committee was constituted on November 30 to oversee the procurement of the vessel for the sea-bridge, he said, “It is reasonable to assume that the location, examination and purchase of the vessel was completed in the month of December.”
But having closely analysed the “factual matrix of this transaction, I am of the firm belief that this matter warrants the attention of the commission and further warrants the invocation of the investigative function of the commission.”
He said an investigation by the commission should not only be triggered by a complaint from a member of the public, but by the “duty to the public to act on its own volition where the facts of any transaction causes the commission to be of the view that a matter warrants investigation.”
… more
Image: freeGraphicToday (Pixabay)
Read more
Reacting to Finance Minister Colm Imbert’s disclosures on the purchase of a new vessel for the seabridge, former Transport Minister Devant Maharaj accused Imbert of continuing to “obfuscate the issue without clarifying the core issues surrounding the procurement of the new ferry.”
Maharaj said Imbert’s statement left the door open for speculation that a financier of the ruling party or a PNM Minister recommended the vessel.
On Wednesday, Maharaj wrote to the Integrity Commission calling for an investigation into the procurement process used to acquire the new vessel.
While Imbert said the procurement process is being done by NIDCO, Maharaj said it appeared from what the inter-ministerial team, headed by Imbert, did the procurement process was also skewed because “identification of a vessel is an integral part of the procurement process.”
He said the ministerial committee having identified and selected a vessel to be purchased raised questions as to “what exact procurement process did the National Infrastructure Development Company Ltd (NIDCO) undertake?”
He has also questioned why there was “no tender by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to purchase a vessel as was done when it wanted to lease a vessel.”
Maharaj said there were a number of questions which the Minister failed to address including:
… more
Image: Via Tsuji (flickr)
Read more
The appointment at last, on Friday of the inaugural Procurement Board is a signal moment in this country’s history. It marks the first serious attempt since the passing of the 1961 act establishing the Central Tenders Board to eradicate sleaze in public affairs.
Under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Act 2015, the new board has tremendous powers, powers which not even the Central Tenders Board has.
The new appointees can investigate, conduct audits and inspections and, crucially, give orders to any public body, from State-controlled enterprises right up to the Office of the President.
The importance of the new system cannot be over-emphasised. Given our country’s history of graft — from O’Halloran right up to LifeSport – there is a clear and present need to protect the public purse.
The slowdown in the economy also means systems championing the values of integrity, value for money and inclusion of local content are more crucial than ever.
While we welcome the appointment, we cannot help but express dismay over the inordinate length of time that has elapsed since the passing of the 2015 legislation, which was itself the end product of a legislative process that took five years. The State needs to do a better job when it comes to passing legislation, setting up public agencies and devising regulations.
… more
Image: Trinidad and Tobago Newsday
Read more
– cites fraud, collusion
A local contractor is the latest to have been blacklisted by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).
According to the most recent list of blacklisted companies and individuals that are barred from participating in IDB contracts, Vevakanand Dalip Enterprises and Vevakanand Dalip, its principal, have been barred for the period December 29, 2017 to December 28, 2030. That means that the company will not be able to tender for IDB contracts for 13 years.
Dalip was blacklisted for “Fraudulent and Collusive Practices”.
Dalip, reportedly based in Lethem, Region Nine, has been bidding for state contracts.
It has not been the first time that local contractors and individuals have been barred by IDB, one of the biggest funders of government projects.
It was learnt last year that the previous Coordinator of the Citizen’s Security Programme, Abel Khemraj Rai, was banned for eight years from August 23, 2016 to August 22, 2024.
Four other companies and individuals that seem to have connections with Rai – including Sidrai Radiator Works, Sidrai Enterprises, Siddaharta Rai and Ron Jaisari – were also sanctioned and banned for four to eight years. They were also found guilty of fraudulent and collusive practices. The last four are reportedly from Trinidad.
Western Scientific Company Limited from Trinidad which did business with Guyana was also handed a four-year ban from March 31, 2016 to October 15, 2020. However, the company controversially received a $30M contract from the Ministry of Public Health last year.
… more
Image: betexion (Pixabay)
Read more
If you have been keeping a regular eye on Caribbean procurement-related news, you would have observed a recurring theme: conflict of interest, or the appearance of conflict of interest. Although the situations vary, essentially, the allegation is that contracts have been awarded to individuals in circumstances where there seemed to be bias, or where there was a close relationship or affiliation with procuring organisation, the tender evaluators, or even with the political directorate, which may have influenced the procurement process, and the tender award.
Allegations of conflict of interest is usually levelled at decision-makers., as reflected in a typical definition for such a matter:
A conflict of interest occurs when a corporation or person becomes unreliable because of a clash between personal and professional affairs. Such a conflict occurs when a company or individual has a vested interest, such as money, status, knowledge or reputation, which puts into question whether they can be unbiased in their decision-making.
(Source: Investopedia)
Although in and of itself conflict of interest is not illegal – but it is behaviour that most countries would like eliminated – when it does happen, it undermines fairness and transparency, which is becoming increasingly important in both the public and private sectors. Further, and in many instances, the performance of contracts issued under those circumstances is not as closely monitored; thus essentially wasting taxpayers’ (or shareholders’) money, and resulting in poorly executed, or no, project outputs.
Avoiding conflict of interest
In many countries, safeguards addressing conflict of interest have been established. Further, donor agencies, such as the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and Caribbean Development Bank, to name a few, address the issue in their rules and guidelines. Frequently, depending on the project, it is a matter that is specifically raised in the tender notice or invitation, where individuals interested in responding to the invitation are referred to the relevant sections of the organisation’s procurement guidelines to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.
It is emphasised that many procurement guidelines speak to conflict of interest by bidders. In other words, they put the onus is on the bidder to ensure a conflict of interest does not exist. Some of the situations that could be considered a conflict of interest and result in disqualification from the tender process include, but are not limited to the following in summary:
- An entity that provided consulting services to assist in preparing a project or in its implementation, it cannot subsequently provide goods, works, services resulting from, or directly related to, its initial project preparation or project implementation consulting services.
- An entity that has been engaged to provide goods, works, or services for a project, cannot also provide consulting services in relation to those goods, works or services (and vice versa).
- An entity already contracted for an assignment, where that assignment may be in conflict with another.
- Prospective bidders (including their personnel, and sub-consultants) who have a close business or family relationship with a member of the tender evaluation committee, the procuring organisation, the donor agency, or even with the ruling government.
- A prospective bidder who submits more than one proposal in the same tender process, either individually or as a joint venture partner.
- A prospective bidder who is a government official or public servant and wishes to participate in a government tender.
It is thus crucial to review the procurement guidelines for the tender process, before starting any work toward your participation. Further, if in doubt, consider contacting the designated representative for that procurement process, for advice on whether your circumstances could be construed as conflict of interest, and your bid subsequently rejected.
Image: Tumisu (Pixabay)
Read more
