Dear Editor,
The Procurement Act 2003 is intended ‘to promote fairness and transparency in the procurement process’, but the Region 6 Tender Board has failed to give effect to the legal provisions provided therein. The Tender Board has also failed to provide fair and equitable treatment to all suppliers and contractors.
Firstly, despite the fact that the Procurement Act specifies certain standardized features and requirements relating to the characteristics of the good to be procured, many dietary and other items are tendered for without due diligence to this requirement (Section 13). This has resulted in a potpourri of substandard goods being procured. The Act also makes it clear that contractors who have supplied substandard goods in the past should be disqualified but unfortunately this has never seen the light of day in Region 6.
Secondly, all the members of the Regional Tender Board are political appointees or politicians who grossly lack the requisite qualifications as expressly stated by the Procurement Act 2003 Section 16 (2). This subsection states that such persons appointed shall be of ‘unquestioned integrity who have shown capacity in business, the professions, law, audit, finance and administration’. If this Section was taken seriously then the Region would have had persons who are suitably qualified to foster the economic and social development of this region.
Thirdly, the members of the Evaluation Committee should possess the same qualifications outlined above. But the appointees to this important Committee are all teachers without the technical/professional expertise as outlined in Section 16(2). It must be emphasized that these members must have more competence other than the ability of looking at figures and doing calculations! They must be able to understand the technical aspect as well. The purpose of this Committee is to evaluate the tenders which the Regional Tender Board has received from contractors and suppliers and has submitted to that Committee. This Evaluation Committee will also use the criteria outlined in the tender documents and determine the lowest evaluated tender. It will then make a recommendation to the Regional Tender Board. What is interesting is that should the Regional Tender Board be in disagreement with the Evaluation Committee’s recommendation, the Evaluation Committee must observe the recommendation of the Regional Tender Board with regards to who is the lowest evaluated bidder! Hence the Regional Tender Board will always influence the outcome of the final decision (Procurement Act Section 39). This is going back to the politicians.
Fourthly, despite the fact that Section 39(6)(a) makes it pellucid that ‘all evaluation criteria for the procurement of goods, works and services in addition to price, will be qualified in monetary terms and the tender will be awarded to the lowest evaluated bid’, there are circumstances where this subsection has been blatantly violated. For instance, in the case of the repairs to Whim Branch Road, the Engineer’s estimate was, $4,058,104 but the Contractor with the lowest bid of $3,507,720 was not awarded that contract. It was given to another Contractor who bid $3,968,364. Another instance is the case of the repairs to Black Bush Public Road-Johanna Three Bridge. The Engineer estimated this work for $6,043,749 and the lowest bid was for $5,446,492 but again the award of the contract was given to the same Contractor as before who bid at $5,829,661 and not the lowest bidder. These contracts were awarded on 7th July, 2016. In both cases the Contractor given the contract was the same and the Contractor sidelined was the same. Is this a case of co-incidence? This is a clear violation of the Procurement Act!
In addition to the above, the Procurement Act provides that Contractors who were not successful should be notified by the Regional Tender Board as to the reasons why their bids were not successful. This was never done and this constitutes a clear violation of the Procurement Act. This question was raised at the RDC meeting on 4th July but no reason (s) was given by the Chairman of the Tender Board or any of the members who were present.
Fifthly, there is also evidence to support incidents of conflict of interest where the son of a Works Committee member bids for contracts on behalf of his father.
Lastly, there is an urgent need for a forensic audit of the Tender Board in Region 6 to dig into the corrupt practices of the Tender Board. The records of the proceedings, the awards of contracts and the background and experience and qualifications of these contractors should come under microscopic scrutiny.
Yours faithfully,
Haseef Yusuf
Regional Councillor,
Region 6
