An improperly constituted Evaluation Committee for the Ministry of Education’s Ministerial Tender Board (MTB) illegally granted 16 contracts valued at $10.678 million, the 2009 Auditor General’s report says.
The report said that the operations of the MTB did not conform to the requirements of the Procurement Act (2003). According to Section 23(5) of the Act, the MTB is required to “select from the pool of evaluators appointed by the National Board under Section 17, three evaluators with expertise and experience to serve as members of the Evaluation Committee for such procurement.” In this regard, the report said, “the MTB failed to submit the required information and as such the NPTAB could not proceed with the appointment of members for the ministry’s evaluation committee.”
According to the register kept by the Secretary of the Tender Board, the ministry’s board adjudicated over 21 awards totalling $14.757 million for purchases of goods and services and 30 awards amounting to $17.002 million for construction. The Auditor General noted that while the MTB was appointed in keeping with Section 22 of the Procurement Act, the board approved awards based on recommendations of an evaluation committee not appointed by the National Procure-ment and Tender Administra-tion Board (NPTAB).
“In relation to the 51 awards, these were approved by three persons that formed the quorum for the entire period. In this regard, two had been appointed in keeping with Section 22 of the Procurement Act (2003) for the entire period, while the appointment of the other was effective 1 June 2009,” the AG’s report said. “The fact that this officer had comprised the quorum, in the months preceding the appointment, effectively invalidated 16 awards valued at $10.678 million, as in those instances the board could not be deemed to have had a quorum or properly constituted.
“The minutes of the MTB did not give reasons for the lack of attendance or involvement by the other two members and it could not be determined whether they were notified of sittings or matters considered by the board,” the report stated.
In response, the head of the ministry’s budget agency explained that despite timely notices, the members did not attend and “this made the round robin of documents necessary”.
Meanwhile, in relation to the contracts for awards made during the period, discrepancies were found where these were deficient, in that clauses stipulating commencement, duration and completion dates, including defects liability period and liquidated damages charges were still not included. “Without proper contract documents, the ministry was exposed to great financial risks should contractors renege on agreements, provide substandard works or fail to show due diligence in the execution of works,” the report said.
The ministry said that contract templates now in use satisfy the criterion that serve to protect the interest of the ministry at all times.
