The opposition People’s Progressive Party/Civic wants an investigation by the Audit Office of the spending of monies from the Demerara Harbour Bridge’s Asphalt Plant to fund the controversial feasibility study for the planned new bridge crossing.
“We need the Auditor General to immediately look into this project because the police will not do it,” Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo said on Thursday.
“Clearly there is enough to warrant a full-fledged investigation,” Jagdeo told a press conference.
The party had previously raised concerns about the project as during debates of the estimates for the 2019 budget last December the matter was raised by Opposition Member of Parliament Juan Edghill.
On that occasion, Minister of Public Infrastructure David Patterson had rejected claims by Edghill that his ministry took additional funds from the Asphalt Plant to fund the feasibility study for the planned new bridge crossing.
In making his contribution to the debate, Edghill used the opportunity to pose questions about the feasibility study for the new Demerara Harbour Bridge that was done by Dutch company LievenseCSO.
“In this budget, a call is being made on the Consolidated Fund for us to provide $100 million to support feasibility studies for the new Demerara Harbour Bridge. Mr. Speaker, we all know in this House, because there’s a report from the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) that this minister breached our procurement laws and the entire Cabinet breached the constitution and procurement laws when they took an unsolicited bid to the Cabinet and the Cabinet approved,” Edghill said, while noting that the payment for the study came from an extra-budgetary account from the Asphalt Plant of the Harbour Bridge.
“In December, 2016, the General Manager [Rawlston Adams] of the bridge, who was also named project manager, signed a contract without the approval of the board… Mr. Speaker, I have information that reveals that in 2017, the asphalt plant of the Demerara Harbour Bridge paid $153,250,385 on this feasibility study. I also have information that proves that in January of 2018, a further $14,728,000 was expended and in February another $59,340,000 was expended. When you add all of these figures up, you are talking about $227 million but we were told that the Dutch company only got $148 million. Where did the rest of the money go? We want to know today, not later on,” Edghill said, while alleging that the ministry went into the extra-budgetary account and took the money illegally to pay for an unsolicited bid.
While Patterson did not address the matter directly during his presentation, he subsequently held a meeting in the Committee Room at the Public Buildings, and said that Edghill’s claims were “outright” lies.
“I could not use that word upstairs but I told him it’s a total untruth and it is a fabrication and I don’t expect him to withdraw that. I am just trying to dispel that we hid any money or paid anything else on that project that wasn’t authorised by Cabinet,” Patterson said.
Additional monies
When questioned about the sum that was stated by Edghill, Patterson noted that additional monies were spent to pay the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GL&SC) for stakeholder consultations and advertisements in the media, bringing the total to $162,653,015.
Patterson also presented supporting documents from Republic Bank which showed that the GL&SC was paid $9,384,630, stakeholder consultations at the Pegasus Hotel cost $886,600 and advertisements in the media cost a total of $1,903,628.
“He’s claiming that there’s another $59 million and it’s absolutely untrue. These are the bank statements from Republic Bank for the Asphalt Plant and you can see the large payments made,” Patterson said, while stating that the last payments for anything relating to the project were made in February last year.
But Jagdeo said that there needs to be an investigation. He reminded that the feasibility study was found to be in breach of procurement regulations by the Public Procurement Commission and there needs to be clarity on the overall sums used.
The PPC found that the ministry breached the country’s procurement laws in the single-sourcing of the contract to LievenseCSO. Cabinet had cleared the award of the contract.
The PPC, in its findings, said the ministry did not place any advertisement for retendering the project, there was no evidence that any restricted procurement process was undertaken for the consultancy, and there was no evidence in the records of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) of a request made by the ministry to approve a single-source award.
The PPC 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.”
Last August, the ministry defended the single-sourcing, saying there 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.
“[Ministry of Public Infrastructure] 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.
