By Gaulbert Sutherland
The Public Procurement Commission (PPC) should be established to ensure that the procurement of goods and services here and the executions of works are done in a fair and transparent manner, a committee of OAS experts says.
Provisions should also be developed to sanction government employees who infringe procurement rules, the Com-mittee of Experts of the Inter-American Commission Con-vention against Corruption report on Guyana has recommended.
There is constitutional provision for the establishment of the PPC but one has not yet been established despite years of wrangling between the government and the opposition though a National Procurement and Tender Administration Board is in place. The issue of public procurement had come under the spotlight recently with reports of the Ministry of Health’s direct purchasing of drugs from the New Guyana Pharmaceutical Corporation (GPC) since 2003.
The final report of the committee was adopted at the June 27, 2008 plenary session of the Organisation of American States (OAS), held in Washington, D.C. The report, while noting that Guyana has considered and adopted certain measures intended to establish, maintain and strengthen the systems for government procurement of goods and services, urged the adoption of provisions in the government systems which ensure the principles of openness, equity and efficiency under the Conven-tion.
The report stated that Guyana should establish the PPC or another independent body responsible for monitoring public procurement and procedures, in order to ensure that the procurement of goods and services and the executions of works are done in a fair, transparent, competitive and cost-effective manner.
It said that the committee observed that certain functions of a PPC are assigned to the National Board until a commission is established but pointed out that the National Board “does not possess the same level of independence constitutionally provided for the PPC in order to carry out those functions”. It urged that the PPC be established.
Meanwhile, the committee advocated that sanctions be developed for government employees, who infringe public procurement rules. Pointing to the absence of provisions establishing sanctions for government employees who fail to fulfill or infringe the public procurement rules, the report recommended the development and implementation of provisions that punish public officials in cases of non-compliance with the public procurement rules “without prejudice to any other laws under the existing system”.
The committee further urged that contractors with ties to a procuring entity be deemed ineligible for projects put out by the entity. The report pointed out that legislation in place does not provide for the ineligibility of bidders or contractors with ties to the procuring entity or who are directly involved in the determination of needs or specifications, appraisal of bids, selection of alternatives or approval of purchases or payments. It urged the development and implementation of provisions to provide for such bidders or contractors to be deemed ineligible.
The committee noted too that there is no public registry of providers and urged Guyana to consider establishing one, which would incorporate relevant information and which all state bodies should be required to use to “foster the principles of openness, equity and efficiency provided for in the Convention”. The report said that it would be useful to allow for the exclusion and/or sanctioning of any contractor for a certain period of time as circumstances may warrant and a list of such contractors and a reason for this should be contained in the registry.
The report also pointed to the fact that there are no legislative provisions that require prior planning sufficiently in advance of the launch of procurement process such as preparing studies, designs and technical evaluations or assessing the appropriateness and timeliness of the purchase. Such provisions should be implemented, the committee said.
It was also noted that there is no legislatively established criteria to be used in the evaluation of bids and there appears to be no evaluation guidelines that provide objective selection factors and the committee urged that such provisions be implemented.
The Committee said that it had no information regarding provisions that allow for the establishment of citizen oversight mechanisms to monitor the execution of contracts where their nature, importance or magnitude warrants it and urged that such provisions be implemented. It was noted that Guyana reported that the Audit Office, the Parliamentary Committee on the Public Accounts among several others provided some oversight mechanisms to raise that issue.
The Committee also noted inconsistencies between the Procurement Act 2003 and its regulations in relation to the procedural rules and time frames in the administrative review system established. “The Committee believes that these inconsistencies make it confusing for bidders to make an effective protest against a bid outcome”, the report said and urged the harmonization of the provisions in the Procurement Act and in the regulations as it relates to this.
Meantime, noting Guy-ana’s response regarding the number of contracts awarded in 2006, which merely listed the number of contracts awarded in the various sectors, the Committee said that it would be useful for the country to have contract statistics that reflect the nature of contracts awarded, the proportions that are by public tender, and those that are by other procurement methods such as restricted tendering, request for quotations, and single source procurement. It recommended that such statistics be maintained and published. Guyana had said too that there is no available data on any sanctions which may have been imposed on contractors.
The Committee said that considering that it does not have additional information that might enable it to make a comprehensive evaluation of the results of the topic, urged that procedures and indicators be developed when appropriate and where they do not exist, to analyze the results of the systems, standards, measures and mechanisms considered in the report and to verify follow-up on the recommendations made.
