Public Infrastructure Minister David Patterson yesterday visited the headquarters of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), where he was questioned about the award of the new Demerara bridge feasibility contract, which was found to have breached the procurement laws.
Sources told Stabroek News the agency’s investigation into the matter is now complete and it will be seeking legal advice.
While persons close to the minister and the investigation confirmed that Patterson visited SOCU’s Camp Street headquarters during the morning yesterday and that he answered questions, he declined to speak about the issue when approached at the Public Buildings.
When approached for a comment, Patterson said “I wouldn’t comment on that.” He was asked whether he was questioned by SOCU officials.
He also declined to confirm that he visited SOCUs’ headquarters.
Pressed on the matter later, the minister reiterated that he will not be commenting on the matter. “I have no comment,” he said while insisting that he was not being secretive.
Patterson, in September, submitted documents, including a written statement on the award, to SOCU.
Based on the information provided, none of the other ministers who participated in the award were questioned.
The investigation into the award of the contract to Dutch firm LievenseCSO is based on the findings of the Public Procurement Commission (PPC), which probed the award upon a request by Opposition Chief Whip Gail Teixeira.
The PPC found that the Ministry of Public Infrastructure (MPI) breached the country’s procurement laws in the single-sourcing of the contract to the Dutch company.
The PPC, in its findings, said there was no evidence in the records of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) of a request made by MPI to approve a single-source award.
It added that 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.”
There is no procedure that defines how a procuring entity should deal with “unsolicited proposals,” such as the one reportedly received from LievenseCSO, the PPC said.
While Cabinet has the right to review all procurements exceeding $15 million based on a streamlined tender evaluation report adopted by the NPTAB, the PPC said there is no evidence that the report to Cabinet was prepared by NPTAB; instead, it was submitted by Patterson directly to Cabinet, which was a breach of the Procurement Act.
“The Procurement Act and Regulations make no provision for the Minister of Public Infrastructure to take a procurement request directly to Cabinet for approval of award of a contract,” the PPC said.
MPI on August 13th defended the single-sourcing, citing what it said 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.
“MPI 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.
In a request made to SOCU Head Sydney James in August, Opposition Chief Whip Teixeira had urged that there be a comprehensive investigation with a view to instituting criminal charges against Patterson.
In her letter to James, Teixeira had noted that on September 18th, 2017, she wrote the PPC with regards to concerns that the procurement laws had been violated in the award of the contract and sought an investigation.
She noted that in a letter, dated August 2nd, 2018, the PPC sent her the report of its investigation with the findings, conclusions and recommendations, which she attached. “Due to the seriousness of their findings and the gross violations of the Procurement Act, with particular reference to the role of the Minister of Public Infrastructure in violating the Procurement Act and the most recent Code of Conduct as outlined in the Integrity Commission, Act, I hereby call on the SOCU to take action as required under the law,” she stated.
