WILD SPENDING
Trinidad and Tobago
The Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) breached sections of the Procurement Act and facilitated bid rigging and collusion among stakeholders at taxpayers’ expense.
Numerous instances of single-contract agreements approved in excess of the Office of the Commissioner’s delegated authority of $1 million and contracts broken up to bypass the delegated authority of both the Ministerial Tenders Committee and Central Tenders Board were uncovered.
These findings and more are contained in the Ministry of Finance Central Audit Committee’s in its Final Report on the Audit of Procurement of Goods and Services and the Hiring of the Staff on Contract undertaken by the TTPS from 2017- 2021.
Various instances of financial mismanagement were unearthed, with the Report noting that the Commissioner did not have the authority to sign off on contracts over $1 million to procure goods and services.
Griffith was Police Commissioner from 2018 to 2021, while Stephen Williams was acting CoP from 2012 to August 2018.
According to the Report submitted earlier this month to the ministry, the significant risks identified by Central Authority for consideration during the audit engagement were as follows:
“Collusion and/or conflict of interest among stakeholders; and fraud and irregularities leading to financial losses and reputation damage; Breaches of internal controls; Weak control environment; Procurement non-compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; Unauthorised expenditure and payments; The non-achievement of Value for money and Financial losses”.
Red flags
Additionally, the Audit raised a plethora of red flags over the manner in which multi-million-dollar contracts were deliberately broken up to bypass oversight and scrutiny in the awarding of contracts. By breaking up the contracts, various businesses were facilitated and both the Ministerial Tenders Committee and the Central Tenders Board overlooked.
“These procurements were done internally by TTPS despite the fact that the values exceeded the CoP’s limit. As such they were neither forwarded to the Special Tenders Committee and the Central Tenders Board for approval. This process is an abuse of the TTPS’s policy as it is a direct contravention of the delegation of authority for the procurement of Goods and Services outlined in the Procurement Policy,” the Report stated.
The Audit noted: “There were numerous instances where single-contract agreements approved were in excess of the Commissioner’s delegated authority of $1 million and contracts were broken up to bypass the delegated authority of both the Ministerial Tenders Committee and Central Tenders Board.
“From the analysis of the procurement transactions undertaken during the period 2017 to present, there were nine instances where contracts were approved internally by the TTPS of which the Commissioner did not have the delegated authority,” it stated.
Overall, the individual requests for the Commissioner’s approval on contracts were issued separately, days apart, to reflect individual transactions.
“As observed, the individual contracts were issued to the same contractor to perform the same service which implied splitting of contracts. These contracts relate to the procurement of Motor Vehicles, Minor Equipment, Information Technology and Development Projects under the Public Sector Investment Programme,” the Report stated.
Memo recommended
Based on the findings, Central Audit recommended the TTPS should issue a memorandum to the Executive Management and all personnel involved in the procurement of goods and services, making them aware of the following penalties imposed under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Regulations for breaches of the Act:
lSplitting of Procurement—Summary Conviction—$500,000 and imprisonment of one year;
lFailure to report collusion—Summary Conviction—$500,000 and imprisonment of one year;
lConduct influencing public officer (bribery, conflict of interest, corrupt, fraudulent, collusive, coercive or obstructive practices—Conviction—$1 million and imprisonment of five years;
lBid rigging, influencing, procurement proceedings—Conviction—$5 million and imprisonment of ten years.
$51 million vehicle leasing/rental
The Report pointed to a $51.1-million-plus contract signed on December 30, 2020, between the TTPS and a marketing company.
Both Griffith and former TTPS head Legal Christian Chandler were signatories to the lease/rental agreement.
Sunday Express checks at the Company Registry revealed that the company is owned by a businessman currently before the courts charged alongside Chandler for breaching Covid-19 regulations following an incident last year on board Chandler’s yacht, Knot Guilty.
The Report pointed out that the TTPS entered a vehicle lease agreement for the lease of 114 vehicles for a period of three years from January 1, 2021, at a cost of over $51.1 million”.
A breakdown of the vehicles revealed the allocation and costs:
1. Special Operations Response Team (SORT) – 47 vehicles – monthly cost -$559,125; total three year cost – $20,128,500
2. Office of the Commissioner of Police – 33 vehicles – monthly cost-$428,062.50; total three year cost – $15,410,250.
3. Inter-Agency Task Force–34 vehicles–monthly cost-$434,700; total three-year cost – $434,700.
Based on the Request for proposals (RFP) for the lease/rental of vehicles, the scope in the RFP document specified a lease/rental period of one year.
However, the lease agreement with the company reflected a three-year period from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2024, the Report noted.
An in-house Tenders Evaluation Committee (TEC) comprising of Sheldon Edghill — head executive committee; Someet Ramroop — head administration and Fareed Mohammed — procurement manager, via a report dated December 11, 2020, noted that six companies were invited to submit proposals on a selective tender basis via a Letter of RFP by the TTPS dated November 16, 2020.
The Audit Report said the TEC proposed that the TTPS enter into contractual arrangements with three firms out of the four which submitted RFP, but a contract was awarded only to the marketing company. Further, based on the contract awarded, the Commissioner did not have the authority to authorise the expenditure of $51.1 million, the report added.
Contracts split
Several procurement transactions were broken up and based on the documentary evidence shown to the Audit Committee, time period, scope of works and location relative to contracts as detailed, the Central Audit said it “is of the view that the contracts were split to bypass the delegation of authority”.
The report cited several instances where contracts were broken up and even signed off on the same day. “The individual requests for CoP approval were issued in such a manner to deliberately facilitate the approvals within the relegated authority of $1 million,” the report stated. “Overall, the individual requests for CoP approval were submitted days apart and/or contracts were tendered out under different phases/packages to deliberately facilitate the approval of contracts within the CoP’s limit of $1 million.”
Among the contracts “split to bypass…to Special Tenders Committee and/or the Central Tenders Board were:
1. Stun guns and N95 masks
lVendor (named) Invoice # 107614 ; Invoice date – January 30, 2020 – Cost – $999,600
lInvoice # 107617; Invoice date – January 30, 2020 – Cost – $997,000. Collective total on both invoices: $1,996,600.
“Both invoices had the same goods and services,” the Report noted.
The TEC memorandum dated August 19, 2019, recommended that a sole selective tender be awarded to this vendor for the supply of 200 conducted electrical weapons/stun guns and holsters, 1,200 cartridges and 200 pepper sprays with carrying case at a value of $999,600, exclusive of VAT and Customs Duty. Another memorandum was presented by the TEC dated September 5, 2019, for the same goods and services for the value of $997,000.
Other contracts “split to bypass… to Special Tenders Committee and/or the Central Tenders Board included:
Procurement of N95 masks
lVendor #1: – 10,000 N95 ; request for approval- 16 March 2020; cost – $590,000
l15,000 KN95; request for approval – 16 April 2020; cost – $590,625. Total: $1,180,628.
lVendor #2: 26,000 N95; request for approval – April 7, 2020; cost – $728,000
l28,000 N95; request for approval – April 21, 2020; cost – $784,000
l26,000 N95; request for approval – May 7, 2020; cost – $728,000. Total: $2,240,000
Bodycam contracts
Other contracts included one for bodycams which was valued at $2.5 million, but was split into three: $987,500 on February 2021; $956,250 on February 16 and $590,625 on May 10, 2021. “All transactions were done via sole select… Notably two transactions were submitted for the CoP’s approval just one day apart… Although it was indicated by the Head of IT that these transactions were not identical, Central Audit is of the view that the overall payments relate to the provision of bodycams and associated components. As such, subdividing each component implied splitting of contracts to ensure the limits did not exceed the CoP’s delegated authority,” the Report said.
Another contract for the command and control equipment saw three separate requests of approval on one day—February 4, 2020 for $888,960 $917,564 and $828,914.63 for a total contract value of $2.5 million.
Contracts for coastal and riverine vessels (total value – $2 million) were split into three. Refurbishment/renovation works on the football, cricket and hockey fields in which the combined contract awarded totalled over $7.3 million were done the same way. “All projects were tendered using selective tendering, inviting firms pre-qualified by the TTPS,” the Report stated.
Improper contract administration
The Audit Report highlighted several instances where full contract payments were recommended by the head of the Planning , Research, Project Implementation Unit and cheques issued by the Finance Branch prior to the completion of contracted works.
“According to the projects process outlined, the payments commence subsequent to site inspection and project completion certificate. “However, full contract payments were authorised resulting in cheques issued despite the works not being 100 per cent complete.”
The following projects were highlighted in the Audit Report:
lThe expansion of facilities at Homicide Area East – Electrical /Power Distribution
lElectrical infrastructural works at the Homicide Bureau of Investigations, Arouca
lRefurbishment works on the 4th floor, Police Administration Building
lCivil works associated with the Divisional Command Centre – Central
lRefurbishment works to media room, audio visual unit at the Police Administration Building
Lack of transparency
Vendors on the TTPS’ pre-qualified list of suppliers and contractors were required to submit a contractor registration form, a company profile and statutory documents.
However, the Audit Report stated in reviewing the TTPS’s adherence to the procedures for pre-qualification process, “there were no contractor registration forms for 80 per cent of the contractors on the pre-qualified list”.
Further, it indicated that the pre-qualification process evaluated the contractor’s technical capability and financial capacity, but “there was no documentation on file to support such evaluation. In the absence of records, the entire pre-qualification process lacked transparency”.
image: pexels-fauxels