An investigation by the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) of the procurement of consultancy services for the Feasibility Study and Design for the new Demerara River bridge has found that no criminal offence has been committed.
In a statement issued yesterday afternoon, Guyana Police Force spokesman Jairam Ramlakhan disclosed that legal advice had been obtained indicating that “a) There was no misuse of funds. b) There is no evidence that a criminal offence has been committed and c) There is no evidence of any collusion between Arie Mol/ LievenseCSO and the personnel from the Ministry of Public Infrastructure.”
The disclosure came on the same day that People’s Progressive Party Executive Gail Teixeira wrote to the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) and indicated that her party has found new evidence which highlights violations of the procurement law.
It is against that background that Teixeira asked PPC Chairman, Carol Corbin, to launch another investigation.
“As a result of this information, I am once again writing the Public Procurement Commission. This information exposes a level of collusion, conspiracy and corruption that requires urgent investigation and intervention with a view to bringing criminal charges against the Minister of Public Infrastructure, Mr. David Patterson and other persons connected to the award of the contract for the Feasibility Study and payments to LievenseCSO,” Teixeira stated in the letter.
She listed what the party believes are “gross breaches” and said that they implicate Patterson.
She accused Patterson of interference in the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation (DHBC), a statutory body, and noted that circumvention of the Chairman and the Board is in violation of the laws of Guyana and the Caribbean Court of Justice ruling of 2006 in the case of Brent Griffith vs the GRA. She also charged that the Minister has committed numerous infractions of the Procurement Act, the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act Section 85 (b), The Audit Act, and the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, with regards to the entire process leading up to the award of the contract and subsequent payments to the company into 2018, using revenues of the DHBC Asphalt Plant. “This level of recklessness and irresponsible behavior with public funds and public projects must not be condoned,” she wrote.
Teixeira alleged that the tender process was manipulated to ensure the award of the contract for the feasibility study to LievenseCSO and that revenue generated by the DHBC Asphalt Plant account for years 2017 and 2018, totaling $293,439,182, was used the contract was publicly known to have ended. As a result, she said the Auditor General needs to examine the contract and its duration and investigate the movement of those monies for the years 2017 and 2018 from the DHBC Asphalt Plant, with a view to seeing who were its recipients and the availability of documents to substantiate the disbursements.
Following a previous complaint by Teixeira, the PPC had found that the ministry breached the country’s procurement laws in the single-sourcing of the contract to LievenseCSO. Cabinet had cleared the award of the contract. The PPC, in its findings, said the ministry did not place any advertisement for retendering the project, there was no evidence that any restricted procurement process was undertaken for the consultancy, and there was no evidence in the records of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) of a request made by the ministry to approve a single-source award.
The PPC said an examination of records relating to the tender and discussions with the relevant officials indicate that “the procurement procedure used to select LievenseCSO to execute the contract did not meet the requirements of any of the methods described in the Procurement Act.”
Last August, the ministry defended the single-sourcing, saying there were time constraints surrounding the need to complete the new bridge and the fact that Cabinet had been fully involved in the decision to hire LievenseCSO.
“[Ministry of Public Infrastructure] reiterates that lengthy procurement procedures were faithfully followed which did not yield suitable results. Having thereafter received a proposal which satisfied the government’s requirements for this project of national importance and given the relevant time constraints, it was felt that it was in Guyana’s interest to take advantage of the proposal. It is for this and other stated reasons that Cabinet’s approval was sought,” it said in a statement.
