Dear Editor,
In last Sunday’s Chronicle of January 29, Mr Keith Burrows concluded that “Guyana has made significant progress to reach higher standards of integrity, transparency and value for money” in the awarding of contracts. This view implies that little work needs to be done in order to comply with the rudimentary requirements of transparency, or with the constitutional requirements of establishing a functioning Public Procurement Commission. It largely ignores the findings of the report commissioned by the Ethnic Relations Commission entitled ‘Research in public procurement in Guyana with special regard to openness and fairness.‘ The view expressed by Mr Burrows also ignores some of my basic principles of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of awarding contracts in Guyana.
Major deficiencies exist, and continue to exist in the current system run by the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NP&TAB). The lack of transparency in the awarding of contracts can be found in virtually all of the phases of the contracting process in Guyana.
The needs assessment phase lacks transparency. Feasibility studies need to determine whether or not the project is suitable for the community. There has been a lack of consultation in this area. Communities have had little input in determining the suitability of the projects for them. Some projects have been approved even though the potential exists for adverse environmental consequences. How-ever, expediency and pragmatism have largely prevailed over the objections of local communities.
The preparation phase during which the bid documents are prepared is very susceptible to corruption because it lacks transparency. In this phase, bidding documents or terms of reference can be designed to favour a particular provider. As a result, competition is not possible or it may be restricted. Goods or services needed can be overpriced or underestimated to favour a particular bidder.
During the contractor selection and award phase, NP&TAB plays a direct role. However, it is still subject to selection criteria which are subjective in ways that could potentially permit biases. An advantage to a particular bidder could potentially be granted through the exchange of confidential information before bid submission or during the clarification period. Clarifications might not be shared with all the bidders and confidentiality could be abused. In addition, sometimes the grounds for the selection of the winner are not made public, thus undermining the transparency principle.
The implementation of the provisions of contracts is when many of the problems are manifested, and corruption, if any, becomes apparent. If so, the end result is that some of the work is compromised and defective products are used. The specifications outlined in the contract are not accomplished. This situation leads to poor quality work which may require early repairs or other expensive corrective measures. The Guyanese public is the loser here.
A major deficiency is the final phase – the accounting phase of the project. This exercise should not be carried out by individuals who have been involved in any of the previous phases mentioned above. This avoids any collusion or cover-up of previous wrongdoing during the final accounting phase. An important safeguard existing in most countries, is the final external audit of the project. But unlike the usual procedure, under which the audit simply reviews and checks whether the numbers add up, an external agency should conduct performance audits which will also review the original cost estimate and benefit projections, compare them with the actual final cost of the project and the actual benefits, and assess whether the original justification of the project proposal still holds. These professional standards should be in place for large scale projects. A typical example can be found in Jamaica where the Office of the Contractor General has jurisdiction over large-scale investment projects. If major discrepancies are discovered in the process, the responsible officials should be investigated and held accountable. This important step has not been followed in Guyana. A culture has prevailed which seeks to protect such individuals who are involved in corrupt practices.
Whenever an audit demonstrates or suggest that a contractor, supplier or consultant has possibly committed any acts of corruption, the case should be fully investigated by the prosecution authorities. If a crime is confirmed, the individual should be charged. This important step is not followed. A system which is more transparent with respect to the issuance of contracts, will result in better value for money.
Yours faithfully,
Winston Felix
Guy-Associates
Berbice
