The Ministry of Health may have possibly committed a criminal offence when it authorized a payment of $7.956 million for works at the Diamond Drug Bond on the same day that the contract was signed, the Auditor General’s report for 2020 states.
According to Auditor General Deodat Sharma, a $7.956 million contract was awarded to the lowest of four bidders by the Ministerial Tender Board on March 11, 2020, and was signed on the same date for the general repairs and maintenance roof work at the Bond. However, the commencement date for the works, duration, completion date and defects liability period could not be determined from the documents presented for audit, the report states.
“The contractor was paid the entire contract sum on the same day the contract was signed. However, based on the scope of works, it was improbable for the works to have been completed in one day. As such, the works may have been falsely certified as having been completed, to facilitate the payment,” the Auditor General said.
He added that there appeared to be a breach of Section 31 (3) of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act, which stipulate that “No requisition for the payment of public moneys shall be made in respect of any part of the Government unless the Head of the budget agency concerned or an official authorised in writing by that Head for the purpose certifies –b) in the case of a payment for the performance of work, the supply of goods or the provision of services – i. that the work has been performed, the goods supplied or the services provided, as the case may be, and that the price charged therefor is in accordance with the contract or other arrangement governing the work, goods or services or, if not specified in the contract or arrangement, that the price is fair and reasonable; ii. where pursuant to a contract or other arrangement, payment is to be made prior to the completion of the work, supply of the goods or provision of the services, as the case may be, that the payment is in accordance with the contract or arrangement; or iii. where…a payment is to be made in advance of verification, that the claim for payment is fair and reasonable; and c) in the case on any other payment, that the payee is eligible for or otherwise entitled to that payment”.
The AG pointed to Section 85 (a) of the FMA which alludes to the commission of an indictable offence for the falsification of “account, statement, receipt or other record issued or kept for the purposes of this Act, the Regulations, the Finance Circulars or any other instrument made under this Act…”
The AG’s report stated that the payment voucher for the entire contract sum was prepared on March 03, 2020 – which was one day after the general elections – and 9 days before the contract was signed. Sharma said that the action reinforces the notion that Section 31 (3) of the FMA Act may have been breached, and consequently an offence committed.
“Further, the said condition is an indication that the procurement process may not have been transparent, as intended by the Procurement Act 2003. Moreover, the basis on which the payment was prepared before the contract was awarded is unknown,” the AG report indicated.
Additionally, the valuation of the works completed was not submitted with the payment voucher to the AG. The report highlighted that of the total contract sum, $500,000 was paid as a provisional sum without any specific documentation as to how the money was utilized. Moreover, the sum of $3.070 million was paid for the “…removal of roofing sheeting and replace with new sheeting” without any specified details as to the level of work done. As a result of the clear deficiencies, the AG reported that he was unable to determine whether the Ministry got value for the monies expended.
In response to the findings, the Ministry said that an investigation was launched to determine what transpired. As a consequence of the investigation, the Ministry reported that “the date of the Tender Board Award appears to be inaccurate.” The Permanent Secretary told the Auditor General that efforts are being made to contact the internal Tender Board members to determine the exact date of the award as well as the supervising engineer to determine when the works were actually executed.
In addition to requesting a plethora of documents, the AG urged “appropriate disciplinary action be taken against any culpable officer(s) for any breaches, wrongdoing and/or negligence of their duties.”
