Dear Editor,
In a letter published in the Stabroek News on February 7th headed `Small Business Bureau contracts for training raise serious procurement concerns’, Bishop Juan Edghill claimed to have received information on “suspicious” transactions at the Small Business Bureau, but never sought to verify the context of the information received or the motive of the person or persons who availed the information to him.
In April 2018, management and staff of the Small Business Bureau (SBB), embarked on a process to review and revise various administrative and personnel aspects of the operations, training and development and the delivery of other services. This initiative was driven mainly by the results of a 2017 midyear review and to some extent, based on feedback from clients (e.g. trainees), all done to address some of the gaps identified.
As a result of this review, revisions were also done pertaining to training methods and on training partners with the objective that both trainees/clients and the Small Business Bureau would derive greater benefits from the programmes and services. One aspect of the revision was based on justifiable recommendations from the training department, to categorise Partner Training Institutions (PTIs), based on their specific focus areas for various levels of clients. Hence, based on the kinds of identified training needed in the particular instance in which Bishop Edghill referred, the names of three training partners were offered from the approved list of evaluated training partners. The approved list existed long before I even joined SBB. This is the same approved list from which every training partner was always selected from.
On the point of the Expression of Interest (EOI) being cancelled; there were some administrative issues regarding that EOI and the process. Hence the decision was taken to cancel the process which resulted in my email that Bishop Edghill published in his letter, being sent to thirteen PTIs (not fourteen as was incorrectly published).
Contrary to what was indicated in his letter, I am unaware of any proposal being received from any of the 13 companies. It is now prudent that Bishop Edghill substantiates his claims by providing the public with evidence that 14 PTIs submitted their proposals.
Bishop Edghill insinuated that a document dated November 28, 2018, requesting payment to the three training institutes was sent to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Business, before the National Procurement Tender Administration Board (NPTAB)’s approval of the same was given.
The facts are herein presented to curtail a miasmic failure by Bishop Edghill to correctly chronicle the sequence of training requests, EOIs and dates:
1. On November 28th requests for payments to the PTIs were sent to the Permanent Secretary (PS) Ministry of Business, but were never approved.
2. On December 3, 2018, the revised requests were sent to the PS as Chairperson of the Ministerial Tender Board. The PS correctly rejected the submission based on the fact that the total sum requested per PTI exceeded the limit of the Ministerial Tender Board. The PS instructed that a new request be prepared and submitted to the NPTAB.
3. On December 11, 2018, SBB prepared the new payment requests addressed to the Chairman of NPTAB, as instructed. Editor, it is interesting to note that the requests dated December 3 and 11, 2018 were not included in Bishop Edghill’s “recent documented information available” to him nor in his letter. Would adding it nullify his claims of “highly suspicious and irregular activity”?
4. These requests dated December 11, 2018, were approved by the NPTAB by letters dated 21/12/2018 and addressed to me. The approvals were granted for the contract training of participants in Regions 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and for sums that exceeded that of which Bishop Edghill indicated in his letter.
The following three issues raised by him are answered in my response:
1. Provide proof, publicly, that after annulling the EOI based on the email adumbrated above, that the 14 companies were all approached to resubmit proposals for this contract;
2. Provide publicly, the evaluation report for the 3 contracts;
3 How is it that a request for payment was made even before the contracts were awarded by NPTAB?
My response to his question 4: Since we have also seen invoices for payment, which shows that training took place on the 29th and the 31st of December 2018, can the Small Business Bureau provide evidence that this training was actually conducted? is; as the Chief Executive Officer of the SBB, I would like to extend an invitation to Bishop Edghill, since he is obviously developing an interest in our operations; to meet with us, so that he would become better informed on the systems and operations and clientele of SBB and their dedication when it comes to training.
His letter also made unsubstantiated assumptions that “the awards of the contracts were for training in Region 4, but the companies submitted invoices for training, which were conducted in Regions 5 and 6”. Editor, SBB does not make payments to anyone who does not fulfill the terms of any agreement. As I indicated above, approvals were granted for contracts for training in Regions 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. However, no training was conducted in Region 4, and there were no invoices submitted for training in Region 4.
As CEO of the SBB, while I am tasked with managing the affairs of the agency, I also have the fiduciary duty to ensure that it operates in a disciplined way, as well as those who serve the agency operate in a disciplined manner. While I do not expect all to be in agreement with the disciplinary measures and decisions taken, I do expect persons who are in disagreement to operate with integrity and provide an accurate picture of the agency and decisions taken.
In the eight years of its existence, the Small Business Bureau has achieved much and has contributed significantly towards the growth of many small businesses in Guyana. The team at the SBB is sagacious and is guided and motivated by our core values. We are committed to supporting small business owners in alleviating some of the struggles they experience daily.
If Bishop Edghill or anyone else has information of “massive acts of corruption at the Small Business Bureau”, or are aware of “highly suspicious, irregular procurement activity”, as stated in his letter or that “it is a cesspool of corruption”, this should be made available to the relevant authorities so that appropriate action could be taken.
Yours faithfully,
Dr. Lowell Porter
Chief Executive Officer
Small Business Bureau
