Bahamas<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
An audit of Bahamas Power and Light (BPL) revealed at least one purchase order (PO) to the tune of nearly a quarter of a million dollars was not signed off on by the CEO or chairman, and another $1.3 million purchase order that had the chairman\u2019s signature, but did not reflect board approval.<\/p>\n
FTI Consulting was contracted to conduct an audit following the controversial termination of members of the Bahamas Power and Light (BPL) board in 2018 \u2014 under the Minnis administration.<\/p>\n
The report\u00a0is expected to be tabled in Parliament this week.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn this instance of the two POs requiring board approval, FTI also did not find clear evidence from board meeting minutes that these POs were discussed or approved,\u201d read the report commissioned by former Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis.<\/p>\n
\u201cDespite the absence of approval evidence in these cases, it is possible that approvals were obtained.<\/p>\n
\u201cFor example, the required approvals may have been given by email.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn any event, this absence of evidence raises concerns about record-keeping practice.\u201d<\/p>\n
FTI also found that in seven of the 55 purchase orders reviewed, documentation such as an executive summary or proof of competitive bidding was missing or at least not provided to FTI for the purchase orders that had no clear competitive bidding exemptions.<\/p>\n
It said if such documentation does not exist, the cases may represent \u201cmore serious policy deviations\u201d.<\/p>\n
FTI reported that while the missing documents did not necessarily indicate that policy violations occurred, the absence of the documentation prevented FTI from making such an assessment.<\/p>\n
Among the vendors with missing executive summaries or evidence of competitive bidding was Sancon Contracting Ltd with a $230,860 purchase order; Rocky Mountain Institute for $33,500; Caribbean Pavement Solutions for $19,600; Proguard Ltd for just over $48,000 and ABC Trucking Services Ltd for nearly $19,000.<\/p>\n
Additionally, investigators noted that BPL\u2019s internal audit department notified FTI that it was unable to locate service or sales contracts for the \u201cvast majority of the POs in FTI\u2019s sample,\u201d read the report.<\/p>\n
FTI said the presence or absence of a contract separate from the purchase order itself was not a focus of FTI\u2019s review due to the fact that, in many cases, the PO\u2019s act as contracts, and no separate vendor agreements are used.<\/p>\n
The firm said this was explained by BPL CEO Whitney Heastie, who pointed out that separate contracts were not required when POs go through the approval process and the purchase is not subject to tender.<\/p>\n
BPL\u2019s internal audit report dated April 20, 2019, found, among other things, that BPL had paid Sancon over $400,000 during a one-year period with \u201cno contract in place and no evidence of tendering\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cBPL\u2019s internal audit department recommended that the company enter into a contract with Sancon,\u201d read the report.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn response, Rollins, BPL\u2019s executive director, noted that Sancon\u2019s engagement had been \u2018approved by the board\u2019 in November 2017 and that services [from Sancon] were facilitated via several purchase orders.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis response seems to suggest that POs were used in lieu of a contract with Sancon and that such use was appropriate for the services purchased.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe circumstances in which a vendor contract is called for in addition to a properly authorized PO may be more of a legal question than a business one.<\/p>\n
\u201cAccordingly, the existence of contracts to support POs was not a focus of FTI\u2019s sample testing.\u201d<\/p>\n
FTI\u2019s testing showed that Sancon was issued a post office box on January 3, 2019, for technical services for Abaco generation, transmission, and distribution in the amount of $230,860.<\/p>\n
It said notwithstanding any lack of contract, the support documentation provided to FTI showed no indication of tendering or an executive summary, and the purchase order was signed only by Ferguson.<\/p>\n
It said for two of the 50 purchase orders, the supporting documentation was partially corrupted and unreadable and FTI was unable to determine if the requisition for them was properly approved.<\/p>\n
Outside of those two POs, FTI also identified 16 cases where requisition approvals did not appear to adhere to BPL\u2019s accepted procedures.<\/p>\n
Three requisitions were reportedly missing and at least one approval; and in 13 instances, the same individuals appear to have approved a requisition at more than on authority level \u2014 the same initials appeared for both the department and division heads approval.<\/p>\n
The investigators said while this could be by extenuating factors such as emergency purchasing needs, \u201cif records documenting such factors exist, they were not provided to FTI\u201d.<\/p>\n
In all three instances where this issue occurred, the resulting PO received all necessary approvals, according to the FTI.<\/p>\n
It said: \u201cDue to the lack of written policy at BPL addressing requisition approval exceptions and overrides, FTI cannot affirmatively conclude that policy deviation occurred in these instances.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to the procurement policy, executive summaries must be signed by the sponsoring director, CFO, COO, and CEO.<\/p>\n
The executive summaries associated with several POs in the same did not appear to reflect all required approval signatures.<\/p>\n
In 14 executive summaries alone for purchases of $100,000 or more, three were missing at least one of the four necessary signatures.<\/p>\n
This included an executive summary for $108,125; $150,000 and $1.31 million, the latter of which contained the signatures of the chairman, CEO, CFO, and division head, but was missing the signature of the COO.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n