SOCU gets tender board documents on Brutus probe
Guyana
police were responsible for list with questionable bidder
SOCU has acquired documents relating to procurement for the Guyana Police Force (GPF) from the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) as it continues its investigation of financial impropriety claims against Deputy Police Commissioner Calvin Brutus.
NPTAB has also made it clear that the list of prequalified bidders for the GPF that it received from the Ministry of Home Affairs last year, and which has on it a company allegedly linked to the Brutus’ wife, is a standard document it receives from respective procuring entities with names of companies reviewed that could bid but only the evaluation of tenders determines who is awarded a contract.
Reliable sources told Stabroek News that the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) had asked NPTAB for records and documents on GPF procurement and contract awards. These documents, one source explained, were handed over but the Board was not informed about the investigations.
In July, Home Affairs Minister Robeson Benn informed that the allegations of financial impropriety made against Brutus were being investigated by SOCU.
Last week, President Irfaan Ali told reporters that SOCU was handling the matter with regard to the Brutus case and that he would not intrude.
Ali’s stance was echoed by Commissioner of Police (ag) Clifton Hicken, who also said that SOCU was an independent agency and had been given unrestricted scope to do its work.
Former auditor general, Anand Goolsarran, has stated that NPTAB may be guilty of dereliction of duty in the case of allegations of financial impropriety against Brutus which has also placed a company allegedly owned by his wife under scrutiny.
He posited that the Public Procurement Com-mission should also be involved in the investigation in keeping with its mandate.
“What is most distressing is that the NPTAB offered no objection to the company being included in the list of suppliers for the Force. It is not clear whether the NPTAB carried out the necessary background checks before offering its no-objection. Such checks would normally include a scrutiny of the incorporation and other documents to ascertain, among others, how reputable the company is, who are the real owners, whether there is any connection with members of the Force, and any other matters that may pose a conflict of interest. If the NPTAB did not conduct such checks, it would have been guilty of a serious dereliction of duty,” Goolsarran wrote in his Accountability column this week.
No dereliction
However, Chairman of NPTAB, Tarachand Balgobin, contended that there was no dereliction of duty by the entity as the disciplined services carries out its pre-qualification screening process of companies and sends the documents to NPTAB to add to the list of bidders. He said that NPTAB then sends its no-objection of the names of the prequalification pool back to the procuring entity.
Balgobin pointed out that a company being prequalified by an agency does not equate to a company’s right to obtain a contract as winning a tender is determined through the independent evaluation process for which the most responsive bid wins.