Former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran says a US$34m deal for a national electronic ID card among the Guyana Government, the UAE and a German company runs afoul of the country’s Procurement Act.
There was a hurried, virtual signing of the deal on Friday and no one in the government has explained why the Procurement Act was not complied with. The violation of the Procurement Act would be a matter for the Public Procurement Commission to examine.
Among questions being asked by a number of persons of the deal are: what is the source of funding for the project and if the money was loaned to this country by the UAE and on what terms; how is United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al Maktoum connected to the overall deal, and why a project that sees so much of a person’s data being accessed was not first ventilated in parliament or discussed with the public. According to the former Auditor General, al Maktoum owned the company from which the government procured more than $2 billion worth of Russian-made Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine in 2021.
“Since the contract was entered into between the Government of Guyana and a German-based company, the Procurement Act is applicable. This normally requires public advertisement inviting Expressions Of Interest and the involvement of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB), with the assistance of a Technical Evaluation Committee, in determining the lowest evaluated bid. It is unclear why these procedures were not followed before the contract was awarded, and why the Sheik was involved,” Goolsarran told the Stabroek News. On Saturday, this newspaper reported the announcement by President Irfaan Ali that Guyana was entering into a US$34M contract for the German-headquartered Veridos Company to produce the cards and produce technical support during its issuance. The government, Ali said, had sought the assistance of the UAE in October 2021 to identify a supplier for the production of electronic ID cards. This was facilitated by Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al Maktoum.
Two companies were recommended – Veridos and another from Switzerland. They submitted prototypes which were assessed by technical teams from the National Data Management Authority [NDMA] and the ICT Advisor from the Office of the National Information and Communications Technology and government chose Veridos, based on advice from the assessments. Goolsarran highlighted that transparency on the deal was needed as Al Maktoum was not only tied to government paying more than two times the cost of Sputnik vaccines through a third party agreement, during the COVID-19 vaccine agreement, but that he was also allegedly tied to persons under fraud investigations.
“The government had procured more than G$2 billion worth of Russian-made Sputnik V vaccine from a company owned by Sheik Ahmed Dalmook al Maktoum at more than double the World Health Organisation recommended price. Concerns had been expressed as to why the vaccine was not sourced directly from the authorities in Russia rather than from the Sheik who in November 2020 had paid a visit to Guyana and who was allegedly closely associated with two persons being investigated in Norway for fraud and money laundering,” he contended.
Pointing to Section 26 of the Procurement Act, he noted that restricted tendering is permitted, but only where the goods or services – by reason of their highly complex or specialized nature – are available only from a limited number of suppliers or contractors, in which case all such suppliers or contractors must be invited to submit tenders. Additionally, he noted that, Section 28 allows single-source procurement but where among other factors, “The goods or services are available only from a particular supplier or contractor, or a particular supplier or contractor has exclusive rights with respect to such goods or services, and no reasonable alternative or substitute exists; and (b) The services, by reason of their highly complex or specialized nature, are available from only one source.” From the reasons he outlined, he said that the contract signed on Friday shows “There is no evidence to suggest that the requirements were met before the contract was entered into with Veridos Identity Solutions.” And aside from the fact that Veridos could produce the cards, Goolsarran noted that “a Google search reveals that there are at least 30 leading companies that specialise in the production of electronic ID cards, which would have rendered both Sections 26 and 28 inapplicable.”
“It can therefore be concluded that the award of the contract to Veridos Identity Solutions for the production of electronic ID cards is in breach of the Section 25 of Procurement Act which requires public tendering to be mandatory, except in certain defined circumstances,” he stressed. On transparency mechanisms that should have been taken, the former Auditor General said that the Procurement Act which provides for the regulation of the procurement of goods, services and the execution of works, to promote competition among suppliers and contractors and to promote fairness and transparency in the procurement process, makes clear what government needed to do and it should have followed that law.
“The Act makes it clear that it is considered desirable to regulate the procurement of goods, services and of construction so as to promote the objective of – (a) Maximizing economy and efficiency in procurement; (b) Fostering and encouraging participation in procurement proceedings by suppliers and contractors, especially participation by suppliers and contractors regardless of nationality, thereby promoting international trade; (c) Promoting competition among suppliers and contractors for the supplying of goods, services, or constriction to be procured; (d) Providing for the fair and equitable treatment of all suppliers and contractors; (e) Promoting the integrity of, and fairness and public confidence in, the procurement process; and (f) Achieving transparency in the procedures relating to procurement.” he emphasized as he quoted the laws.
“The main plank of the Procurement Act is open tender, except in certain defined circumstances. Since there was no competitive bidding in relation to the award of the contract to Veridos Identity Solutions for the production of electronic ID cards, it could not be determined whether the above stated objectives were met, especially as regards (a), (e) and (f),” he added.
