Guyana<\/p>\n
The fact that the procurement commission found major breaches in the evaluation process but said it could do nothing about the pump station contract awarded to Tepui Inc., is a dereliction of duty and indication of incompetence says APNU+AFC Member of Parliament David Patterson.<\/p>\n
\u201cFrom their response alone (the Public Procurement Commission) in other words is telling the public that a complaint can be filed concerning a contract being awarded in contravention of its bidding and evaluation criteria and once the investigations are done and the contract has already been successfully awarded there is nothing they can do about it, so in other words they are saying that they are useless\u201d, Patterson told Stabroek News on Wednesday.<\/p>\n
The Public Procurement Commission (PPC) on Tuesday issued a summary of findings in relation to Patterson\u2019s complaint since he was not an aggrieved party and was therefore only entitled to recommendations on the way forward.<\/span><\/p>\n The PPC said \u201c\u2026on the entry into a contract, privity of contract issues arise. There is nothing within the statutory framework which permits the commission to revoke, rescind, recall and or in any way alter, suspend or stop the contract once entered\u201d.<\/p>\n However the former Minister of Public Works during a telephone interview with Stabroek News maintained that the report was a sham by the procurement commission in its bid to show that it was doing its job.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The PPC\u2019s findings will call into question its effectiveness in addressing contract irregularities particularly where a bidder does not complain within the prescribed period. Bidders are loathe to do this for fear of being excluded from future consideration of projects.<\/p>\n The Alliance For Change (AFC) executive said that the award of the $865m Belle Vue Pump Station to Tepui Inc. had raised questions in the public domain as to what made the company\u2019s key principal Mikhail Rodrigues qualified for the contract as he was inexperienced in the field of construction.<\/p>\n Patterson maintained while the report may have outlined several flaws regarding the evaluation process by the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board, it did not stipulate the corrective measures in the event of a contract being awarded to an inexperienced company.<\/p>\n In its 35-page summary, the PPC elicited answers from the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) \u2013 whose evaluation committee chose Tepui \u2013 and the procuring agency, the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA).<\/p>\n Not only were both tardy in answering the PPC, but they only provided some of the documents requested.\u00a0 With this being cited in the report, Patterson commented that this \u201cshows the regards these state agencies have for the commission as they did not even respond in time\u201d.<\/p>\n Tepui was required to have had the experience of having completed one project of a similar nature within the past five years. Similar projects \u201cshall include pump stations, sluices and drainage structures\u201d. Having been incorporated less than a year before the contract award, Tepui did not have these qualifications, yet the evaluation committee of the NPTAB found its bid to be responsive.<\/p>\n When the PPC asked the NPTAB and the NDIA to justify their decision, they cited what they described as similar types of work which Tepui had done for other clients. They also admitted that two other tenderers for pump stations were similarly not qualified but that \u201clenience\u201d was shown.<\/p>\n At this point, Patterson said, \u201cWhat I found quite perturbing is that they cast blame on the evaluation committee at NPTAB, stating that the body misinterpreted the clauses in the documents and contended that they didn\u2019t thoroughly follow the tender process, what they [the PPC] should have done was ensure that NPTAB and NDIA go back through the tender process and pinpoint what their errors were, you didn\u2019t know what the criteria were and these guys did not follow it in this award because a lot of persons were disqualified, but they just took the report just as it is \u2026no due diligence followed\u201d.<\/p>\n The Member of Parliament also castigated the PPC for not mentioning cabinet reviews on the awarded contract in its report as it was mentioned several times during private parliamentary sessions.<\/p>\n The summary of findings said that the record before the PPC reflects that Tepui submitted two\u00a0contracts to establish its credentials, to wit:<\/p>\n i. a contract between it and Hadi\u2019s World Inc. dated March 27th, 2023, for the construction of a concrete wharf at Providence, and ii. a contract between it and the Central Housing and Planning Authority dated February 24th, 2023, for the upgrading of roads in Block 3, Great Diamond. These projects would not have qualified it.<\/p>\n The summary of findings also said that Tepui itself submitted as part of its tender, a letter addressed to the NDIA and dated June 13th, 2023, under the hand of \u201cWinston Martindale, Director\u201d\u00a0 captioned \u201cRecord of Past Work Experience\u201d in which it is stated \u2013 \u201cOur company was registered in August 2022 and has now commenced the process of bidding for projects, hence we do not have any past work experience but our team of personnel have years of experience under upgrading and rehabilitation of roads as indicated on their respective resumes.\u201d<\/p>\n Defending the two Tepui projects,\u00a0 NPTAB said in part that the \u201cconstruction of a pump station and a pile bed foundation involves multifaceted tasks and material supplies to create robust infrastructure. Commonalities lie in foundational aspects, with earthworks for the pump station and pre-stressed concrete piles for the wharf providing stability. Structural works are vital in both projects, encompassing the construction of pile caps and beams for the pump station and various structural elements like deck slabs and U-beams for the wharf. Additionally, revetment works are necessary for both to prevent erosion and ensure long-term stability. Both projects require meticulous attention to detail in supplying and installing essential components such as steel frameworks and pumps. Furthermore, aspects like road access, internal landscaping, and electrical works contribute to the functionality and aesthetics of both structures\u201d.<\/p>\n Tepui also did not provide a bank line of credit. It provided a line of credit issued by Puran Bros. Later a letter of credit issued by Caricom General Insurance Company also appeared but this also was ineligible.<\/p>\n Tepui did not submit \u2013 as required \u2013 an audited financial statement as it was not in existence for a year.<\/p>\n In terms of equipment requirements, Tepui, the summary of findings said, did not show evidence of three pieces of equipment.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n