Under pressure to say why it appears to be doing no substantial work, the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) on Friday said that it still has under active consideration matters that have been raised with it by APNU+AFC MP and former Minister of Public Works, David Patterson.
The PPC has come under searing criticism from Patterson for not addressing his concerns and other matters raised in the public domain despite the fact that it was fully constituted in July last year and a chair and deputy chair named.
In a statement on Friday in response to a news item in Kaieteur News reporting Patterson’s concerns, PPC Chief Executive Officer, Michael Singh said: “As previously stated by the Commission by way of public statement issued on 24th April, 2023, the matters which Mr. Patterson have raised with the commission are under active consideration and are awaiting legal advice, the particulars of which Mr. Patterson continues to misrepresent in the public domain”.
On April 21st this year, speaking at an Alliance For Change (AFC) press conference, Patterson blasted the PPC for spending taxpayers’ money but not executing its constitutionally enshrined functions and addressing complaints. He also expressed bewilderment that the PPC was seeking legal advice on its functioning despite the fact that a previous commission operated under the current provisions.
Patterson had said then that he had been unofficially informed that the Commission, after being dissatisfied with internal legal advice, was in the process of seeking the following legal advice from external sources:
– To determine if the Commission can execute any of its functions listed in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of this country.
– To determine if the Commission can carry out any investigation into any breaches which occurred before they were sworn in in July 2022.
– To determine, if only Suppliers or Contractors directly associated with a specific Contract can request investigation not members of the public.
“This is a bizarre and unorthodox position since a Member of Parliament previously brought a complaint regarding the Demerara Habour Bridge feasibility study, which the PPC investigated”, Patterson said.
In a follow-up letter on Thursday which was published in yesterday’s Stabroek News, Patterson again roasted the PPC over the soliciting of legal advice and other matters.
“In my previous statement to the press, I referred to the fact that the PPC is seeking external legal advice to find out if it can carry out its function and is engaging the services of a strategically chosen lawyer to the tune of US$4,000 – a blatant disregard for the internal legal team, a waste of taxpayers’ money and a `go-slow’ tactic. Further, is the Chairperson saying to taxpayers that Parliament and the President erred in law when they approved, appointed, and swore in the five members of the Commission, under the same constitutional provisions which the Chairperson is now inferring does not allow the Commission to carry out its function?!
“Even further, is the supreme law of this land, the Constitution Article 212 W and 212 AA which established and mandated the function of the Commission, now null and void? Does this also mean that the Minister of Finance, the Finance Secretary, and the entire Parliament are breaking the law by continuing to provide funds from the treasury to a Commission that legally should not be in existence? It seems so, since the Commission, through the actions of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson, is withholding its core function to investigate and monitor pending the outcome of the legal advice sought – an illogical, go- slow tactic and blatant disregard to transparency and good governance – one which was aptly carried out by the previous Commission under the coalition government!
“The PPC lacks leadership and independence, and the well qualified technical staff must be fiddling their fingers, demotivated, and stifled to execute this function, since there is not one single investigation that was carried out by the current PPC – the Annual Report of the PPC will be of much interest to read! I have highlighted before that the Commission, instead of being occupied with its core constitutional mandate to monitor and investigate, is pre-occupied with the hiring and firing of staff. The revelations from previously fired staff were damning – fired for taking conflicting instructions from the Chairperson versus the CEO – no fault of that employee.
“Duties assigned to technical staff have been delegated to other staff and also outsourced: the case of the Legal department cited earlier; the Public Relations department’s work is also being outsourced. Is the Public Procurement Commission flouting the procurement laws to outsource services to friends? Previous employees hold the strong view that black employees have been the target of dismissal and non-confirmation of employment. Is this the One Guyana we speak about? Is this the constitutional agency that Parliament and President envisioned to uphold the principles of transparency and accountability to the people of this country? The leadership deficit must be corrected and the PPC technical staff must be empowered to execute its function”, Patterson said.
In his reply on Friday to Patterson, Singh said: “The commission, as is any citizen of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, is entitled to seek legal advice as it has so done and is perplexed by the apparent contention as made in the said article, that it is not entitled to do so and is derelict by so doing”.
Singh also addressed Patterson’s claims about staffing at the PPC.
“For the protection of the privacy of members of staff including former members of staff, the commission declines at this time to comment publicly on their conduct and or performance save and except to say that: –
The allegations touching and concerning the reasons for the termination are inaccurate;
All members of staff previously employed by the commission and met by this commission on its establishment have been retained, contracts renewed and continue to function in their respective roles;
On the establishment of this commission there were only five members of staff, mostly administrative and the commission therefore has since its establishment taken steps to build capacity at the commission particularly its technical arm;
The AFC nominated Commissioner heads the HR committee of the commission”, Singh stated.
He also deprecated the insinuation that the PPC is outsourcing its work to friends.
Singh added that training is not the only function it is currently engaged in.
“While training activities may be the most visible due to their nature, the commission is entrusted with other functions including but not limited to public awareness, legislative reform, monitoring, debarment and investigations as enabled by the Procurement Act. The commission has set out a work plan for the current fiscal year, predicated on its functions and on which approval was made of its budget in the National Assembly, to whom it is mandated to report.
“We are sensitive that persons may hold the view that their matter and or the function of the commission related to their matter is the most important. However, the commission gives all of its functions equal weight and importance as the constitution does not give precedence to any one function over another.
“All complaints brought to the commission have been addressed some to finality and others still under active consideration”, he said.
Patterson had said on April 21st that complaints were raised on the award of the following:
– Eight contracts awarded to V. Dalip Enterprise, by the Regional Democratic Council, Region #9, totalling $106.8M. This contractor had been debarred by the PPC in November 2019 until December 2030. These awards were also flagged in the Auditor General’s report of 2021.
– A contract awarded to V. Dalip Enterprise for the four-lane Highway from Eccles to Great Diamond, by the Central Housing and Planning Authority, totalling $890M, this Contractor as mentioned before was previously debarred by the PPC.
– A contract awarded to St8ment Investment Inc. for the construction of the Bamia/Amelia’s Ward Primary School by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development. Patterson said that public records showed that this company was established only eight months prior to the award, bringing into question if the company would have met the technical criteria as set out in NPTAB’s Standard Bidding Documents.
