Shadick: ‘If GECOM cannot be transparent, I don’t know how they could hold transparent elections’
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament is trying to ascertain how GECOM was able to purchase $24.633M in pharmaceuticals and cleaning supplies back in 2006 from a company with a fake registration, an issue compounded by the fact that the contract was awarded through the national tender board.
Chairperson of the PAC, PNCR-1G MP Volda Lawrence on Monday said that a special report on this matter will be compiled and taken before the National Assembly, since it is important that a proper account be given for the manner in which taxpayers’ money is spent. This particular lapse, committee members said, also brought the operations of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) under scrutiny.
When the PAC met on Monday, the Chief Election Officer, Gocool Boodoo, who also serves as the Guyana Elections Commission’s Head of Budget Agency, was the lone official present to field questions on the 2007 and 2008 Auditor General’s reports. The Commission’s Chairman, Dr Steve Surujbally, Boodoo said, was unable to attend because he was out of the country.
Boodoo was grilled about several aspects of GECOM’s operations highlighted in these reports, but specifically about the $24.6 million dollar contract, by Lawrence, PPP/C MP Bibi Shadick, and AFC MP David Patterson.PNCR-1G Shadow Finance Minister Winston Murray was also present for a time.
According to the 2007 Auditor General’s Report: “ In an attempt to determine the reasons for significant pricing disparities that existed between suppliers, it was discovered that a GECOM supplier, from whom purchases totaling $24.633M were made, could neither be located at the stated business address nor be contacted by telephone.” According to the report, “this prompted suspicions that the supplier may not have been genuine.” The Head of Budget Agency in response to the Report of the Auditor General for 2006, the report said, had provided a copy of a “Certificate of Registration” in support of the authenticity of the supplier. However, checks undertaken during the current reporting period revealed that this had been falsified, the report said.
GECOM, in response, said that the matter had been adjudicated by the NPTAB and that the Commission had made several requests to the Tender Board for access to the relevant information but was advised that the files cannot be found. The Audit Office recommended that GECOM investigate the matter and report on the validity of the purchases, the circumstances surrounding the disparity in pricing and credentials of the supplier.
To date, the report has not been completed and the matter is once again reported in the latest Auditor General’s report that was tabled in the National Assembly on Thursday.
An official of the Auditor General’s Office revealed on Monday that the money was spent on pharmaceuticals and janitorial supplies. He said that investigations done by the Audit office showed that the items could have been gotten at a cheaper price. The official said that more checks were being made on the supplier but he could not be found. A business registration was provided by the Head of the Commission’s Budget Agency and when checks were made at the Deeds Registry it was discovered that the registration had been forged, the official disclosed.
Boodoo explained that the supplies arrived a few days before the 2006 Elections and were used to clean polling stations in time for Election Day. Boodoo said that as a rule he does not have any contact with contract awardees and did not have details about who the supplier was. He said that this was a policy set out by the Commission as well as a personal preference. “I don’t go out there and check on anyone,” Boodoo said, adding that when the contract is approved by the Tender Board, he goes ahead and concretizes the arrangement.
The Chief Election Officer said that it is the Expeditor and the Administrative Manager who have dealings with the contract winner. According to him, telephone records have since been produced to indicate that contact had been made with someone who supplied the goods. He said other documents relating to the bidder would have been with the NPTAB.
Finance Secretary Neermal Rekha said that he was perturbed that the Accounting Officer (Boodoo) cannot interface with people. The general responsibilities of the Accounting Officer, he said, required such interactions. He said too that a contract could not be signed between two parties without the bid documents being available.
During the period of questioning, members of the Committee raised concerns about the transparency of GECOM operations, even as Boodoo was chided for his attitude at the sitting. “If GECOM cannot be transparent, I don’t know how they could hold transparent elections,” Shadick remarked at one point.
“I now see why the government [doesn’t] want to give ya’ll money. I now see why,” Lawrence said. Similar sentiments were expressed by AFC MP David Patterson, who said he now understands the reasons behind the current impasse between the government and the Commission.
Boodoo, in response, said he was working under difficult circumstances but pledged to adhere to the laws of the land, while adding that he had a duty to respond to the needs of the Commission. According to him, in previous years he had had some of this authority encroached upon but since this year he as reassumed his position as the Head of the Budget Agency.
Questions were also raised about the checks and balances at the NPTAB before awarding contracts, and later when Chairman Donald De Clou appeared before the Committee he said that normally checks on documents submitted are made with the relevant authorities. According to him, the Tender Board “would go to the extreme to find out authenticity“ of a document submitted by a bidder. He said too that once a contract has been awarded by the Tender Board, the documents of the contract winner – including the compliances –would be handed over to the procurement entity. He said that the NPTAB would also keep copies of these documents.
When the forged registration in relation to the GECOM expenditure was raised De Clou appeared surprised by the discovery and promised to investigate the matter.
Both GECOM and the NPTAB are expected to report to the Public Accounts Committee on the matter later this month.
