Prime Minister (PM) Mark Phillips has declined to answer why an entity that comes under his office refused to supply information that had been requested by the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) in relation to a probe of a complaint by Akamai Inc.
The Hinterland Electrification Com-pany Inc (HECI) which comes under the PM’s office had been cited by the PPC for not complying with a time-bound request for information on the Akamai case. HECI was the procuring company and documents were sought from it and the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB). HECI’s refusal to supply information was referred to in a summary of the PPC’s findings.
On Thursday, Stabroek News contacted Chief Executive Officer of HECI, Horace Williams for an explanation on why it did not comply with the request from the PPC for information. Williams then referred Stabroek News to Phillips for a response. When contacted, the PM referred Stabroek News to Williams but was he was told that Williams had referred the newspaper to him.
The PM then said that the matter concerning the rejected bid from Akamai Inc was not something he wanted to get involved in but suggested that this newspaper again contact Williams.
When Williams was contacted again, he told Stabroek News that “all he knows is that he was aware the matter was before PPC and NPTAB”. He did not explain why HECI did not supply the information asked for by the PPC.
Williams said that while his company is a procuring entity, the evaluation of bids and determination of whether the bids met procurement standards or not falls under the auspices of NPTAB’s evaluation committee.
“The bidder you are referring to [Akamai Inc] submitted a bid that was unsatisfactory to the appropriate procuring body which is the PPC and because of that it was rejected, which he challenged and lodged a complaint”, he said.
But despite questions asked by Stabroek News on why HECI could not provide to the PPC a copy of the Record of the tender proceedings including the Evaluation Report and all other such relevant documents, the CEO was mum.
He eventually noted that the matter had nothing to with his company but the PPC.
HECI was informed by the PPC of the complaint on September 7 last year and requested to submit within five days:
1. a copy of the Record of the tender proceedings (tender) proceedings including the Evaluation Report and all other such relevant documents,
11. whether the contract therefor has been entered into, and if so, a copy thereof and
111. whether the procuring entity complied with Section. 39(3) of the Procure-ment Act, Cap. 73:05 by considering that the Evaluation Report for the subject tender and thereby indicated their agreement or disagreement therewith, before the contract award.
The PPC in the summary of its findings said that there was no response from HECI within the time delimited and or at all.
Its Chairperson Pauline Chase criticized NPTAB for not replying within the timeframe stipulated and HECI for failing to provide the PPC with the relevant documents as requested.
“The commission is once again compelled to express its disappointment and concern at the non-response by the procuring entity and sloth of response by NPTAB to the request for information by the commission. In addition to adversely affecting the work and efficiency of the commission, it also unnecessarily undermines transparency”, she said.
“The commission urges procuring entities and NPTAB to be better responsive”, she added.
