Cayman Islands
The Office of the Auditor General has found that government has responded to the majority of recommendations made by Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee on the basis of three audit reports.
In a first follow-up report, released last week, the auditor general tabulated that 76% of the 61 recommendations had been implemented or were in progress.
Auditor General Sue Winspear said, “I am pleased to report that the government has made good progress in implementing the recommendations made by the PAC and my office in the reports relating to the government’s use of consultants, temporary staff, and outsourced services, and in fighting corruption.”
Winspear added, “That said, some important recommendations have yet to be implemented.”
She noted that the tender limits given in the Procurement Act regulations are still different from those given in financial regulations made under the Public Management and Finance Act.
“It is also not clear if the government has actually started to centrally monitor and report its expenditure on consultants or outsourced services. This is essential information for decision making,” she said.
The update found that by the end of December 2021, government had not responded to seven PAC reports.
“I am concerned that the civil service continues to fall further behind in responding to PAC reports,” Winspear said. “Reporting back on progress with the implementation of recommendations is a fundamental part of the accountability process. The delays in responding to the PAC undermine this process.”
In an August 2021 report on government’s reaction to 15 PAC reports tabled between September 2018 and December 2020, the auditor general highlighted that government had responded to only three within the allotted timeframe, six responses were late, and five reports remained unaddressed.
Report on pharmacy services not acknowledged
Last week, a Public Accounts Committee hearing received testimony from Nellie Pouchie, acting chief officer of in the Ministry of Health and Wellness, on the ministry’s lack of response to an auditor general’s report on government’s pharmacy services.
In that report, the auditor general criticised that she had not heard from the ministry before the release of the findings, despite allowing for almost two months of clearing time.
“This is both highly unusual and disappointing, especially when I previously reported in 2017 and more recently in 2021 that there are significant gaps at the national level for healthcare as the legislative framework is outdated and there is no overarching strategic plan,” Winspear wrote.
Pouchie apologised to the committee and blamed both capacity constraints and the COVID pandemic for “overpowering” her short-staffed ministry’s ability to provide a response.
She promised written feedback accepting the recommendations to the auditor general and the PAC immediately, but said a more substantive timeline for implementation would take until the end of the first quarter.
Pressed by the committee members on why government entities like the Health Services Authority had found time to respond, despite the pandemic, Pouchie said such a comparison was “not fair”.
“We all have different challenges that we’re dealing with,” she said, adding that “our challenges are real in terms of staffing shortages”.
These concerned especially technical and policy advisory staff, which in combination with the constraints caused by the pandemic, meant that the ministry’s tasks in terms of strategic and legislative development had to be pushed back, she said.
more
image: Pexeles-audit
Read more
Guyana
It is with great worry that, once again, the situation regarding Guy-ana’s public procurement practices must once again be addressed and criticized. The entity in question is the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB), whose members are in charge of all public procurement in the country. Since this administration has taken office, many questioned the contract awards that have taken place in the public sector – there have been many instances regarding lucrative contracts being awarded to a select few contractors, many of whom were not (and could not) have been the lowest, most responsive bidder in accordance with the Procurement Act, our country’s law governing the public tendering system.
First, 1 would like to offer an overview of the most important sections of the Procurement Act. Section 39(2) of the Procurement Act states that “The Evaluation Committee shall, using ONLY the evaluation criteria outlined in the tender documents, evaluate all tenders, determine which tenderer has submitted the lowest evaluated tender, and convey its recommendation to the procuring entity…” Section 39(3) states that “If the procuring entity does not agree with the Evaluation Committee’s determination, the procuring entity shall issue an advisory recommendation to the Evaluation Committee regarding which bidder should be the lowest evaluated bidder, which recommendation the Evaluation Committee shall observe.” Section 39(5)(a) states that “A tender shall be rejected if the supplier or contractor that submitted the tender is not qualified…” Section 35(6)(a) “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 bidder.” Sections 35(8) and 35(9) stipulate that the lowest evaluated bidder may be required at the discretion of the procuring entity to demonstrate its qualifications to execute the contract and, if they fail to do so, the tender shall be rejected.
The Procurement Act also stipulates in Section 12 that there should be no inducement from suppliers and contractors in the public procurement process to engineer a certain outcome. Why, then, if we have this supposedly fair method of public procurement, are contracts being awarded in the way that they are? In some instances, experienced and reputable contractors are not even being invited to tender for some works. There are also many so-called “overnight contractors” that have sprung up since the PPP took power. The list is long for the number of friends, family, and associates of the PPP that have been empowered by the administration to become contractors in the public sector because that is the sector where the PPP has the most control and the most spending power.
In the government’s defense, however, there is a process in the Procurement Act for review of rejected tenders. Section 52(1) states that “A bidder whose tender or proposal has been rejected may submit a written protest to the procuring entity.” Further, Section 53 allows for an independent Bid Protest Committee, whose decision is binding on the procuring entity. While these sections were established to lend fairness to the public procurement system, it is also marred by politics. In reality, those that are appointed to conduct the review of an appealed bid are also appointed by members of the administration in power. It is also extremely important to note that the PPP administration has deliberately disbanded these appeal committees and procedures and, therefore, a contractor has no redress when it comes to unfair treatment at the hands of NPTAB. Even if such appeal processes were still in effect, a contractor who appeals his / her bid would only be asking for trouble in using this process. Appealing a rejected bid can be likened to painting a target on one’s back and showing that target to the Government’s firing squad. Better to accept the fact that your bid was rejected and hope that the Government takes pity on you the next time.
The reality is such: all the Government’s money comes from taxpayers and each taxpayer should be afforded a fair and equitable opportunity to benefit from the spending of such money. At what point in time does the ruling party stop using taxpayer dollars to repay their supporters? At what point will the public tendering process become a level playing field? As we all know, the Government is usually the largest spender in any country and there are many that depend on the public procurement process for their income. But the PPP seems more intent on taking care of its supporters than all of Guyana’s citizens. We understand that rewarding the supporters of any political party is important – but that does not mean that others should suffer because of it.
In saying all of this, we praise the likes of Glenn Lall and Christopher Ram, among others, who stand up for fairness in the public procurement process and advocate for a corruption-free Guyana. We guarantee that if the likes of these figures started their own political party, those that stand against corruption would throw their full support behind them. In the same breath, we call on those that stand for fairness, equality, and democracy to step up and hold the Government of Guyana accountable for its actions. The US has the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Canada has anti-corruption provisions embedded into the Criminal Code as well as the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. The UK has the Bribery Act (2010). These countries have long taken a stand against corruption, and we are calling on them to do so in Guyana.
We challenge the US Embassy, the Canada High Commission, the UK High Commission, the Private Sector Commission, the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce, and the Guyana Manufacturing and Services Association (GMSA) to take a stand and uphold this country’s democratic values. When the last general elections were being held, these organizations were the “guardians of democracy” and rightfully stood against the APNU / AFC attempt to rig the election. But where are they now? Why isn’t pressure being applied to the public procurement process in the same rigorous manner that it was when the general elections were being held? Democracy does not stop when a government is elected. It is even more important to hold a government to its democratic principles when they are in power than when they are trying to attain that power.
To the above-named parties, you have the authority and influence to investigate the actions of the PPP administration and, specifically, NPTAB. The evidence sits in the files of NPTAB. Gather the tender documents and question whether the contract was awarded to the lowest, most responsive bidder. This is the law. The PPP administration has had more than a year to repay their supporters. There are others who depend on the income of public procurement – not just company owners, but the large amounts of people they employ as well. The world is watching. We need to do better.
more
Image: CQF-Avocat (Pexels)
Read more
Trinidad and Tobago
ANY bidder for a public contract who is dissatisfied with the outcome of the bid will be able to challenge it in court under new procurement rules, Finance Minister Colm Imbert told the House of Representatives on Friday.
He moved to approve regulations which give effect to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Act 2015, and said further regulations (already drafted) were pending which do not need the House’s nod (known as an affirmative resolution.) Imbert said he expected the act, now partially proclaimed, will be fully proclaimed very soon.
He said the regulations had been laid last July and then again last December, each time to garner public comments, on what he said was “a very complex matter.”
Imbert said a plethora of court decisions both in Trinidad and Tobago and abroad had ruled that hitherto insufficient public law elements exist to allow a court to get involved in contract awards.
This had been the ruling in the case of NH v Udecott and Spancrete v Udecott, he said.
The only current exceptions were in cases of alleged corruption or a breach of statutory duty.
Imbert then said that under the new procurement regulations, for the first time ever, the award of state contracts will include public law elements into which courts will be able to intervene.
He said the regulations have “set the stage for the full proclamation of the act.”
Disputed matters will be decided firstly by the Office of Procurement Regulation (OPR), secondly by a review board and then thirdly if still required by the law courts.
He remarked that while the evaluation of any bid was supposed to be done on both price and non-price factors, there was a general concern that state bodies often focus only on the lowest price, but ignore quality issues such as the use of inferior materials. He urged the item’s life cycle be considered, not the bid price.
Imbert promised “a paradigm shift” after the proclamation of the act and the passage of the current regulations and more regulations pending.
“At this time the commercial decisions of state enterprises are not subject to judicial review in TT unless a prima facie case of fraud, corruption or bad faith can be established.
“What this (new regulations) is going to do now is it is going to allow someone who feels that the persons who evaluated his bid did not give him a correct number of points or did not take into account all the features of his bid or his particular circumstances….This will now allow the OPR to get involved and sit in the shoes of the evaluators of the tender committees in state enterprises.”
He said the change was “a very serious move” that the country had asked for and had taken a very long time.
“It will lead to greater transparency, there’s no two ways about that, and we shall see how it affects the pace of development in the country. We shall see whether it is indeed the panacea it is held out to be.” He thanked his ministry officials, expert consultants, construction industry voices and other stakeholders.
He said TT was now “well on the way in the very near future to full proclamation and implementation of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Act.”
more
image: pexels-cytonn
Read more
Jamaica
Edward Gabbidon has resigned as board chairman of the HEART/NSTA Trust amid concerns about his position and the relationship his company, SynCon Technologies, has with the troubled skills training agency.
It comes months into a Sunday Gleaner investigation that brought the issue to light and just days after HEART’s portfolio boss, Prime Minister Andrew Holness, downplayed the conflict-of-interest concerns frowned upon by the agency’s own policies and several government laws and regulations.
Holness said last Tuesday that he was confident in the businessman, who is also the chief executive officer of SynCon, a major tech supplier to HEART.
Holness thanked Gabbidon for his service and will name a new board chairman shortly, said a statement issued Monday night from the Office of the Prime Minister. It said Gabbidon’s resignation took effect on December 17.
The prime minister has joined his transport and mining minister, Robert Montague, and Agriculture Minister Audley Shaw, in being forced to deal with board changes in recent months as concerns about the governance of public bodies mount.
Gabbidon said, among his reasons, that he did not want to become a distraction to the work of the board.
“In deciding to give of my time for public service, it was never to seek personal benefit, public praise or political attention,” he said.
Monday’s announcement came the same day the Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal, National Integrity Action, and the Jamaica Manufacturers and Exporters Association demanded that Holness rethink Gabbidon’s status.
The last 16 months have been an unstable period for HEART, starting with a September 2020 auditor general report that raised questions about the value for money spent on several skills training programmes.
Gabbidon was first appointed in April 2017 and took charge as the entity was undergoing $300-million merger in which three institutions were absorbed.
The merger has been lauded publicly, but internally, fissures run deep over the restructuring, management, procurement, human resource practices and, ultimately, questions about the quality and rate of certification – the key deliverable expected of the agency funded by a tax on employers.
The entity has been without a permanent managing director since March, raising questions about succession planning.
Further reporting by The Gleaner revealed internal worries among the procurement staff about the recommendation for the award of a contract in 2019 to the chairman’s company.
In April, this newspaper reported on a chain of emails in which chair of HEART’s procurement committee, Marsha Whyte-Fletcher, spoke of a “clear conflict of interest” in the recommendation for the award of a contract to the chairman’s company and sought advice from the agency’s legal officer, Desrine Pearson.
Pearson said that while the observation about a potential conflict of interest was “prudent and reasonable” given the committee’s responsibility, she could not make a determination as to whether there was actual conflict of interest.
Pearson acknowledged receiving from the procurement committee a statement of affiliation form submitted by Gabbidon but not a declaration of interest the committee mentioned in its request for advice.
But Gabbidon is arguing that Pearson’s comments have been used to suggest that he did not make the required declarations.
He said he did disclose his interests and had no involvement in the procurements in question because the contracts were valued below the level that would require board approval.
“I fully understand, respect, and indeed support the need for political debates on these matters. However, oftentimes the truth is a casualty and facts treated as incidental to promote a narrative,” he said, seemingly referring to the Opposition’s questioning of Holness on the issue last Tuesday in the House of Representatives.
Regarding the 2019 contract that triggered questions among staff, Gabbidon said the procurement process was later aborted and that he recused himself from examination of the matter.
Between October 2006, when it started providing services to HEART, and March this year, SynCon won 196 contracts totalling approximately $303 million, according to documents the agency supplied in October through an Access to Information request.
Gabbidon first became chairman of HEART on April 3, 2017, and information HEART submitted to a parliamentary committee in July indicates that since his tenure began, 39 contracts were awarded to SynCon valued at $134.6 million.
That means that 44 per cent of the total monetary value of all contracts awarded to SynCon since 2006 coincided with the period Gabbidon chaired the HEART board.
In the five years leading up to Gabbidon’s appointment, SynCon was awarded 81 contracts valued at approximately $102 million.
Over the summer, HEART was also ordered by the finance ministry to discontinue the illegal imposition of a tax on travelling officers, resulting in the chaotic implementation of a new system.
In further questionable actions, Holness revealed earlier this month that despite having a hotel, HEART spent $5.7 million to host a retreat for its board and senior executives at the Moon Palace Jamaica hotel in St Ann.
HEART has also admitted to paying out millions in salary increases to some of its senior employees before getting board and finance ministry approvals.
The prime minister has announced that HEART is undergoing a strategic review because the agency has not been meeting some of its policy objectives.
More
Image: pexels-sora
Read more
British Virgin Islands
Cabinet has said Banco Popular de Puerto Rico is the primary bank for the Government of the Virgin Islands and any transactions undertaken by the government will be through that financial institution.
This was indicated in a post-Cabinet decision document released on December 23.
“[Cabinet also said] the tender process for the procurement of a joint Banking Service and Payment Gateway Processor Service for the Government of the Virgin Island’s revenue collection be waived for a period of three years,” the document stated.
It noted that discussions between the government and Banco Popular started due to a good relationship that developed over the years.
“Negotiations for the joint Banking Service and Payment Gateway Processor Service commence with Banco Popular and Evertec, Inc, respectively, due to the existing relationship with both vendors and for business continuity,” the document said regarding the government’s decision to use Banco as its primary bank.
The government also negotiated rates charged by Banco Popular for Banking Service and Evertec, Inc for Payment Gateway Processor Service and it will be submitted to Cabinet for further approval.
The rates negotiated was not disclosed in the document.
Meanwhile, Cabinet has instructed the Ministry of Finance and the Attorney General’s Chambers to draft the agreements between the government and Banco Popular and Evertec Inc, on completion of the negotiations.
Recently, the government entered into a half-million-dollar contract with an entity referred to as ‘Premier Group’ for the configuration and implementation of a payment gateway.
The payment gateway is expected to provide access to all government services for revenue collection.
More
Image: pexels-expect-best
Read more
