GEORGETOWN, Guyana (CMC) — The Guyana government has strongly denied acquiring vaccines to treat the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic from anyone facing legal troubles, insisting that its vaccination programme is aimed at saving the lives of all Guyanese.
“At no time did Guyana procure vaccines from any illegal entity or anyone in trouble with legal authorities anywhere. At no time did Guyana access vaccines secretly from anyone,” the Ministry of Health said in a statement on Wednesday night.
Earlier this week, Opposition Leader Joseph Harmon called on President Irfaan Ali to disclose the details regarding the purchase of the Russian made Sputnik V coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines from a member of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) ruling family who visited Guyana last year.
“A full explanation of the vaccine racket is demanded of President Irfaan Ali by the Guyanese people,” Harmon said with regards to the one billion dollar (One Guyana dollar=US$0.004 cents) purchase.
“This level of industrial scale corruption by the installed People’s Progressive Party (PPP) regime has been disclosed at a time when Guyanese are suffering from a COVID-19 pandemic, the worst flood disaster in our history, high and rising cost of living, low wages and salaries paid to public servants and blatant discrimination by the installed PPP regime in the manner it manages the affairs of the state,” Harmon added.
But in its lengthy statement, the Ministry of Health said the purchase of the vaccines was above board.
“Guyana has not procured vaccines from any illegal source as far as Mr. Harmon’s claim that the Government procured vaccines from any international fraudster; this is blatantly false. We are not aware of, have not seen any evidence, and none was presented by the Leader of the Opposition, or any other person or entities, that show Sheik Al Maktoum is an international fraudster or wanted in any country,” the statement said.
more
image: pexels-nataliya-vaitkevich
Read more
On 28th May 2021, the government of DOMINICA received tenders from five (5) contractors, invited in what the National Authorising Officer (NAO) of the European Development Fund cites as a negotiated [tender] procedure, for the construction of fifty (50) houses in the Kalinago Territory grouped in six (6) lots.
In an article dated 6th June 2021[1], Prime Minister Skerrit took ownership of the process stating, ““We got some monies from the European Union and as Minister of Finance, as Prime Minister, I am responsible for indicating along with the European Union, how we spend that money and where these monies are allocated for,” Skerrit said. “I decided … [that] I want all of the money spent in the Kalinago Territory and that is how we are getting the 50 homes in the Kalinago Territory for Kalinago brothers and sisters.””
DNO goes on to indicate, “The Prime Minister revealed that the contract has gone out to tender and the bids should be in and hopes that a contract can be awarded “in the next few days.” Construction works are expected to begin in July 2021.”
There are many interesting things about this tender that was actually “out” since April 2021. (1) There was a previous tender properly undertaken under the rules to the European Commission which returned tender on the 24th July 2020. (2) The Government of the Commonwealth of DOMINICA through the NAO, attempted to secretly invite contractors to bid on this second round, (3) None of the three local contractors who formed the joint venture, which was positioned to be awarded at least 3 of the lots in the first round of 24th July 2020, were invited and were refused documents for Round 2. (4) The procurement rules under the Public Procurement & Contract Administration Act #11 of 2012 (PP&CA Act #11 of 2012), which are still in force, were totally ignored. (5) The Delegation of the European Union in Barbados seems quite conformable that funds from the European Union are being used in a procurement process that is engaged outside the national law and riddled with irregular and discriminatory practices.
- Round 1 – The First tender for 50 Houses in the Kalinago Territory
This tender was conducted under the PRAG rules of the European Union and yielded returns on 24th July 2020 from five tenders, F& C Construction, NH International (NHI), CEI Ltd, Argos and ACE-JARS -STEWCO (2020) JV. The results and analysis are presented in Table 1 and 1.1 below. A few things are clear:
- That if all contractors met the post-qualification requirements for the respective lots, and appropriate discounts offered applied, the best possible award would be for a total of EC$ 26,643,253.94, VAT inclusive.
- ACE-JARS -STEWCO (2020) JV would be awarded lots 1,2 & 5, F&C C Lot 3, NHI lot 5 and Argos Lot 6.
- That NHI and CEI Ltd were on the average $1.25 M (38% higher) and $2.0 M (57% higher) respectively, than the two indigenously local contractors.
This event was cancelled because the total tender amount that could be awarded – pre-VAT of EC$23,168,046.90 – was cited as beyond the funding provided by the European Union. It is interesting that the government and NAO had the option to negotiate with the contractors and did not do so. One of the opportunities for negotiation was to reduce the scope of works, for example, reducing by deleting the accesses as was done for Round 2. Another option was to inject funds from other sources, or proceed with fewer houses or lots in the first instant, allowing a second round for the balance, given that the Kalinago people had a critical need for housing post-Hurricane Maria in keeping with government reports that this part of Dominica suffered the hardest hit in terms of housing.[2]
- The Secret Nature of Round 2 Tender – 28th May 2021 – and inherent discriminatory practices.
The NAO office administered the 2nd round of tenders in a clandestine manner, choosing not to publish the event or invite all the previous tenderers of Round 1, or more accurately deliberately denying the opportunity of three local contractors who formed the ACE-JARS-STEWCO (2020) JV to tender[3]. In fact, while the NAO refused opportunities to those who provided the economically most advantageous tender on at least three (3) of the six (6) lots, at the same time, the NAO sought the help of other government departments to find “suitable” tenderers. Of those sought, at least one admitted that it could not meet the post-qualification criteria and did not submit tender, and it is questionable if any of the others, besides NHI, could meet the requirements for more than one (1) of the six (6) lots. Published using the EU tender documents, the NAO called it a “negotiated procedure” – the definition of which is still being withheld – yet it had all the hallmarks of irregular and discriminatory practices that has been used to shut-out productive private sector entities from State-control or financed procurement events for goods, works and services. The NAO did not respond to our follow-up email of 17th May 2021.
The only known difference in the scope between Round 1 & 2 is the removal of accesses and movement of one house from one lot to another. The results of the 28th May 2021 submission and analysis is presented in Table 2 & 2.1 below. A few things are clear:
- That NHI and F&C C were the only two tenderers who participated in both rounds, however F&C C submitted for Lot 3 in Round 1 and Lot 1 in Round 2.
- The difference in NHI prices per lot in Round 1 & 2 were on the average less than 2%, 1-5%, and less than 1% on the total tender sum without discounts for the two submissions a 10 months apart.
- That if all contractors met the post- qualification requirements for the respective lots[4], and appropriate discounts offered applied, the best possible award would be for a total of EC$ 27,290,739.35, VAT inclusive – approximately EC$ 647,500 more than the result of Round 1 – 10 months ago – 24 July 2020.
- If ACE-JARS -STEWCO (2020) JV had been invited and submitted tenders for the same lots as in Round 1, with prices within the margin of change of NHI (practically same pricing for a competitive event) and the accesses of Round 1 were removed in the pricing, then the best possible award would be for a total of EC$ 23,342,161.82, VAT inclusive – over $3M less than the result of Round 1 – 10 months ago – 24 July 2020.
- The Government plans to award contracts[5] above the initial budget allocation and at least 12.4% more than it would have on the face value of the tenders of 24th July 2020 which was for a large scope of works.
The Prime Minister and Minister of Finance is on record as saying, understandably with some level of advice after analysis of tenders, “Construction works are expected to begin in July 2021[6]” DOMINICA, it appears, to be suffering from mismanagement of external financing given to us through budget support, seemly as because the arch-goal of our development strategy is not in sync with our funding and financing agreements. Other arch-goals seem to be at play which appear to deliver the following: (1) the effecting of corrupt payoffs through a complex system of irregular and discriminatory procurement practices, and (2) the denial of opportunity for participation and growth of those entities who have openly refused to participate in these illicit and corrupt practices.
- The procurement rules under the 2012 Procurement Act, which are still in force, were set aside.
Section 33 (1) of the PP&CA Act #11 of 2012 mandates that, “A procuring entity shall procure goods, services or works by — (a) the open competitive bidding procedure; or (b) any restricted bidding procedure.”
Section 34 (1) provides that the normal method of procurement is open competitive bidding and prohibits discrimination against any bidder or groups of bidders[7]. Of course, in order to manipulate the situation and facilitate the private objects of persons in the current administration, the regulations and threshold required under section 34 (2) (a) have never been passed! Nevertheless, the section states this important inexcusable preface: “Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), a procuring entity shall use the open competitive bidding procedure where –”.
None of the reasons provided for under Section 33 (3) [8] which would justify a procurement entity, the NAO delegated by the Financial Secretary in that case, to use a restricted bidding procedure could be reasonably cited as having existed. (a) There was a first round which provided competitive bids from five contractors – the reason for cancelling was that the scope did not match the budget. The second round showed that only marginal price reduction was obtained through the scope reduction (NHI 2021 vs NHI 2020). (b) The value of the works are significant and therefore open competitive methods would normally give the best market value result. (c) Intrinsic in both rounds is a qualification process, few bidders will submit bids if they are aware that they are expressively not qualified to win a contract, as was seen by those who were invited for Round 2 but did not submit bids, and the limited number who submitted on the open procedure of Round 1. (d) The Current Administration and the Procurement Board has failed, after 6 years, (i) to compile the required lists under Section 10(1), or (ii) put any threshold or regulations in place, presumably making it easier for the unscrupulous to manipulate the process.
Section 41 (1)[9] to (4) of the PP&CA Act #11 of 2012 prescribes that a procuring entity, in this case the Financial Secretary’s office through the NAO, shall advertise all procurement opportunities except those related to national defense or national security or propriety information from single source restricted procurement. This means even restricted bidding procedures ought to be elaborately and appropriately advertised. It is no wonder that the current administration after illegally behaving in a way that proports to administratively repeal an act of parliament, moves to replace it with a shadow-of-a-skeleton excuse of a procurement bill 2021.
The Government of Dominica was made to enact the PP& CA Act #11 of 2012 as a precondition to obtaining financing through budget support by entities such as the European Union whose interest are managed by its delegations, such as the Delegation of European Union for Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean. However, since the PP& CA Act #11 of 2012 came into force in January 2015, the facilitation of discriminatory and irregular procurement practices in public procurement events have been the norm, have been even more openly displayed, and have grown!
More
Image: pexels-photomix-company
Read more
A new procurement bill is in the works, says Minister in the Ministry of Finance Ryan Straughn, while maintaining that the procurement and tendering for Government contracts is already equitable.
He was responding to a question from moderator David Ellis on Voice Of Barbados’ Brass Tacks Sunday radio call-in programme. Ellis had asked how the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) intended to fulfil its 2018 election manifesto promise of ensuring small contractors received more work.
While stating that the Government’s procurement process was above board, the minister said they had already made steps to ensure fairness with amendments to the Financial Management Act two years ago, but would be going a step further to ensure they reached all the contractors directly.
“There will be a new procurement bill that I will introduce later this year. But for the record, when we passed the Financial Management Act in January 2019, we amended the financial rules to introduce the specific procurement rules for enfranchisement. (TG)
More
Image: pexels-thirdman
Read more
Under PPP program, private partner(s) will operate and maintain airports for up to 30 years while govt will still be the owner
NASSAU, BAHAMAS — The government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas has extended an invitation for interested parties to attend an industry forum concerning private operator/developer concessions and related opportunities in connection with the Bahamas Airports PPP Program.
Airport operators, service providers, lenders, construction companies and facility managers are among those likely to be interested in attending a virtual industry informative presentation about the proposed airport PPP program. This briefing, hosted by the Bahamas Ministry of Tourism and Aviation, will be held on Monday, June 28, 2021 at 11am (EST) via Microsoft Teams.
Officials from the Commonwealth of The Bahamas will introduce the PPP program and present opportunities available to the industry in the context of future transformation, operations and management of an airport portfolio, which includes the following airports:
- Grand Bahama International Airport, Freeport, Grand Bahama;
- Leonard M Thompson International Airport, Marsh Harbour, Abaco;
- Exuma International Airport, Exuma, Great Exuma;
- North Eleuthera International Airport, Eleuthera;
- Long Island International Airport, Deadman’s Cay, Long Island;
- Great Harbour Cay, Berry Islands; and
- San Salvador International Airport, San Salvador Island.
LeighFisher, the government’s transaction advisor, will present an overview of the proposed opportunities, partnership structure and the expected timelines for procurement.
Airport proponent being sought to transform and operate airport portfolio
The government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas wishes to focus on sustainable and resilient long-term solutions to rebuilding its airport infrastructure throughout the Family Islands of The Bahamas and is seeking experienced, qualified private partners to update, operate and improve the portfolio of airports to drive traffic and revenue growth and further enhance quality of service. Under this PPP program, airport facilities are not being sold; the government and communities of The Bahamas will retain ownership of the airports and a private partner will be granted a concession and lease to update, operate and maintain the airports for up to 30 years.
More
Image: Pexels-Esther
Read more
The prime minister yesterday seemingly threatened to disclose personnel file details on a former government employee who wrote an article challenging the administration’s procurement reform implementation.
Dr Hubert Minnis, while closing the budget debate in the House of Assembly, blasted Daniel Ferguson as “an angry man” in response to a June 10, 2021, article published in Tribune Business where the latter warned that the “true intent and value” of the Public Procurement Act was in danger of being lost due to flaws in its execution.
An irate Dr Minnis, asserting that Mr Ferguson as an ex-government contractor had “breached confidentiality” with the article’s contents, also suggested the latter would have difficulty finding new employment or work as he asserted: “Who would hire such an individual moving forward?”
This came just after the prime minister, in thinly-veiled references to Mr Ferguson’s past career at both the Royal Bahamas Defence Force (RBDF) and Ministry of Health, indicated he might reveal details from the ex-contractor’s personnel files held by the government if the public procurement issue continues to be raised. “If you push me enough, I will,” he warned.
Dr Minnis was responding to Glenys Hanna Martin, the opposition MP for Englerston, who sparked the furore when she tabled Mr Ferguson’s Tribune Business article some days earlier as part of the 2021-2022 budget debate.
The prime minister sought to portray Mr Ferguson as a disgruntled former employee with a grudge, variously describing the article as “misguided” and “misleading and inaccurate”, but without explaining why or rebutting any of the details contained in the piece.
The only specifics challenged by Dr Minnis were the September 1, 2021, date for implementing the Public Procurement Act, which he denied had been chosen for “political expediency” so that the government could award multiple contracts prior to the new system being implemented.
“I read that opinion piece, which was riddled with inaccuracies and misleading statements,” Dr Minnis said. “I intended to ignore it, as I question the motivation of the writer. But given that the member opposite [Mrs Hanna-Martin] brought it up in Parliament, I will briefly respond.”
Instead of directly addressing Mr Ferguson’s concerns, the Prime Minister instead blasted the procurement practices of the former Christie administration in what some observers will likely view as an attempt to deflect attention from the issues surrounding his government.
“When we came to office, we found contracts for any number of vendors that did not go to the Tenders Board as required,” Dr Minnis said. “We found contracts that did not go to Cabinet as required. Months and months into our term there were people coming forward with contracts that were signed outside of any procurement process.”
Slamming what he branded as “slack processes”, the Prime Minister added that the Christie administration had promised public procurement reform but had failed to deliver, leaving the present government to instead complete the job with an Act that takes effect on September 1 this year.
“It is an Act that is among the most progressive in the Caribbean, embracing all elements of global leading practices. It will require publication of all contracts,” he said
Dr Minnis argued that it was “strange” for Mr Ferguson to argue that the Government should have followed the Public Procurement Act’s procedures because it has yet to become law, yet this is not what the article actually said.
Mr Ferguson instead questioned whether contracts issued by the Ministry of Education had been tendered via the digital supplier registry, which is where Bahamian companies interested in bidding on government contracts can register, obtain information on tenders and submit bids.
“During his budget debate contribution on Wednesday, June 2, Jeff Lloyd, minister of education, practically bragged that nearly $40m was spent by the government on school repairs and that an additional $20m will be added for their continuation. Were these contracts tendered via the e-procurement supplier registry or the print media? Who were these contractors? The public presently has no idea,” Mr Ferguson wrote.
Referring to the Ministry of Education contracts, Dr Minnis said: “The existing policy and legal framework for procurement has been adhered to in the award of these contracts. These were the same policies the side opposite ignored regularly.
“Where appropriate, the contracts went to the Tenders Board or to the Cabinet for consideration. Even though they used to ignore the guidelines regularly, this administration is using the same guidelines and procedures for procurement that the side opposite left in place. They are the same guidelines and procedures that have been in place under successive administrations for decades.
“The Ministry of Finance is busy putting in place the processes, procedures, rules and training to ensure that the September timeline is met comfortably.” Dr Minnis then went off-script, adding: “We will abide by the law and related regulations.
“The truth is that the operational leadership of the Ministry of Finance recommended to myself and the minister of state [Senator Kwasi Thompson] that the timeline be pushed back to September because of the complexities of the Act and the significant changes that are required.”
Dr Minnis’ ire, though, was sparked by a further challenge from Mrs Hanna Martin, who argued that the Prime Minister was using the September 1 deadline as a smokescreen to distract attention from Mr Ferguson’s concerns as to whether the e-procurement supplier registry – which has 763 registered firms – had been used to bid the contracts.
#This led to the Prime Minister’s description of Mr Ferguson as “an angry man” and the references to his government personnel records, with Dr Minnis adding: “There is such a thing as confidentiality. If, after leaving the ministry under whatever circumstances, this confidentiality is breached, who will hire such an individual moving forward as well?”
This prompted another intervention by Mrs Hanna Martin, who cautioned the Prime Minister against using the House of Assembly and parliamentary privilege to attack someone who was present to defend themselves. Desmond Bannister, deputy prime minister, also rose to state it was not true that the electronic procurement and tendering portal has yet to be used to bid government contracts.
More
emage: pexels-cottonbro
Read more
