Deliberations of the Region Nine Tender Board have been severely criticized in the 2011 Auditor General’s Report which said that because of defects it could not be determined whether the tender process was fair and complied with the Procurement Act.
It was another damning assessment of accountability in a PPP/C controlled region where numerous taxpayer-funded contracts are awarded.
The report which was tabled in Parliament in October said that a review of the regional tender board minutes showed that the basis of the award of contracts varied. It said that awards were made on the basis of “lowest bidder”, “most responsive bidder”, “based on Evaluation Committee’s recommendation”, “fourth lowest at Engineer’s Estimate”, “bidder has relevant machinery and equipment” and other such. Some of these would be in clear breach of the Procurement Act.
In addition, the report said that when a request was made to the regional administration for the submission of evaluation sheets and evaluation reports for 17 contracts for audit scrutiny, full documentation was submitted for only one contract. Partial submissions were made for the other contracts and as a result, the Auditor General’s Report said that it could not be determined:
i) on what basis the Evaluation Committee made its recommendations;
ii) whether the contracts were in keeping with the recommendations of the Evaluation Committee;
iii) the criteria used by the Evaluation Committee to make its recommendation;
iv) whether the Evaluation Committee employed the same criteria in evaluating all bids.
As a result of the above, the report said “…it could not be determined whether the tender process administered by the Regional Administration was fair and in keeping with the prescribed procedures in the Procurement Act of 2003”.
An examination of 34 contracts for works awarded and executed showed unsatisfactory features, according to the Auditor General’s report.
-Eight contracts went past their duration without the required approval for extension. One of the contracts was exceeded by five months and three others by four months.
-Penalties were not applied against defaulting contractors even though this was catered for in the contract.
-The duration for the contract was not stated on three of the contracts
-Final inspection certificates were not provided for 13 contracts and as a result it could not be determined whether was any breach in contract duration.
-There were two cases where retention payments were made before the stipulated three-month timeframe.
The Auditor General’s report said that it could be “concluded that the execution of contracts were not properly administered by the Regional Administration. As a result, the Administration may not be receiving full or timely benefits for the projects executed”.
When these problems were put to the region, it acknowledged the findings and said that it had “put systems in place to have these discrepancies corrected…”
The audit office recommended that the regional administration “adhere strictly to the terms and conditions” of the Procurement Act.
