Dear Editor,
Please permit me to add my own contribution to the issue surrounding the purchase of the boat by the Guyana Police Force (GPF) in 2009. We learnt that: (a) the said boat was purchased from Cartonics IV for $16.974 million from among three quotations, the others being Car Mart ($20.286 million) and Rama DBK Ltd. ($18.734 million); (b) the transaction was a corrupt one involving kickbacks to key officials in the GPF; (c) the equipment purchased was not appropriate for the work of the GPF; (d) the concerned officials repaid the kickback money which was refunded to the Consolidated Fund; and (e) the item was sold off at auction. I respectfully wish ask the following questions?
1. Who developed the specifications for the boat as well as the “Engineer’s Estimate”? Who inspected the boat, and at what stage was it found to be unsuitable? Was there any clause in the sale agreement for the return of the boat if it was not in conformity with the specifications?
2. The Procurement Act 2003 does not apply to items purchased for national defence or national security. Does this boat fall under this category, and if so, what alternative tender rules were followed to ensure transparency and best value for money?
3. How did the three entities know of the proposed purchase of the boat? Was there a public advertisement or restricted tendering? If the latter is the case, on what basis were the three entities selected to submit quotations. I ran a Google check, and I found no evidence of the existence of Cartonics IV. A similar check indicated that the names that came close or were identical to those of the other two entities, deal in automobiles and are operating mainly out of Japan. Did anyone check to ascertain whether the other two quotes were genuine by contacting the suppliers and applying other procedures?
4. It is standard procurement practice for requisitioners to be prohibited from making contact with any bidder for the supply of the related goods and services. Why were senior officials of the GPF allowed to make contact with one of the bidders?
5. We are told that the National Procurement and Tender Board (NPTB) recommended to Cabinet that the award be made to Cartonics IV. Why did the NPTB not insist that the procurement be made from reputable suppliers? What did it allow the purchase to be made from an intermediate supplier? Did the NPTB run a check on the background of the three entities? Who were the members of the NPTB that made the recommendation? I note that the members of the NPTB are to serve for two years. Is there a system of re-appointment, and if so, could the Ministry of Finance provide a list of these members and the length of time they have served so far in the NPTB? Is there a system whereby the members of the NPTB become ineligible for re-appointment after serving for, say two terms, as per established practice?
6. Should not the Minister of Finance, who appoints the members of the NPTB and to whom they report, accept some measure of blame for this corrupt transaction? And what about Cabinet? Is its role merely to rubber stamp the recommendation from NPTB? Should it not have asked the above questions before offering a “no objection” to the purchase?
7. Finally, what was the role of the Audit Office in all of this? I checked the 2009 Auditor General’s report, and the only comment under the GPF’s capital expenditure was in relation to the rehabilitation of a police station in Region 1. Before I demitted office, I had left in place a system whereby there is 100 per cent coverage of all of the government’s capital expenditure programmes. Previously, the results, whether they reflect negative findings or not, were reported to the National Assembly. When I returned from the United Nations, I opted for “exception reporting” in the 2003 report on the grounds that “full reporting” would result in a bulky and unwieldy document. The then Chairman of the PAC, the late Winston Murray, was not happy with this new form of reporting and requested that the Audit Office revert to its original format. Judging from the latest reports of the Auditor General, it seems that we are back to “exception reporting.“ If that is the case, could the Audit Office indicate what checks were carried out in relation to the purchase of the boat and on what basis it was satisfied that the transaction was in order? I do not expect an answer to the effect that the transaction was not checked because it did not fall within the framework of the sample selected. The policy has been to give 100 per coverage of all capital expenditure, and engineers are employed to assist in the effort.
Yours faithfully,
Anand Goolsarran
