APNU+AFC MP, David Patterson on Monday grilled Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance, Gail Teixeira on whether the public was getting value for money from expenditure on the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) which he has frequently accused of not doing its work.
The start of the consideration of estates for the 2024 budget saw a back-and-forth between Patterson and Teixeira with regard to the PPC’s current expenditure.
When given the chance after the Committee of Supply had been convened, Patterson raised concerns over the PPC’s budget allocation, noting a substantial increase. Patterson’s inquiry focused on the number of reports completed and published by the PPC since its re-establishment in 2022.
Teixeira stated that the PPC had completed four investigations in response to specific requests, with two reports published on their website. She detailed the staffing of the investigation unit, consisting of two investigators and five staff members in operations.
Patterson further questioned the use of external private consultants and pressed on the projected number of reports for 2024. To this, Teixeira stated that the projected reports were based on the requests received and highlighted factors such as document availability influencing their ability to meet the target.
The exchange also touched on the history of the PPC, challenges faced during its reestablishment, and the staffing levels. Patterson scrutinized the agency’s expenses, including salaries and benefits for the Chairman, Deputy Chairperson, and Commissioners. He further questioned the value for money, emphasizing the agency’s expenditure of $435 million over 18 months to produce only two reports. In response, Teixeira defended the PPC, emphasizing its role in anti-corruption efforts and oversight.
The discussions also covered various aspects, including the legal department and external consultations. In response to Patterson’s inquiry about the delay in report submissions, Teixeira said it was not a matter suitable for parliamentary discussion.
As the discussion progressed, Patterson’s questions seemed to rile Teixeira. On one such occasion, the MP asked about the operating units and whether they are currently functioning from within the Public Procurement building.
In response, Teixeira stated: “Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure what the honourable member is trying to get to. There’s one office that they have. He knows where the building is. It’s on New Garden Street. And that is the centre in the Office of the public procurement commission. And that’s where the staff is… where would they be elsewhere, as he tried to hint at something else. What is it? Don’t be conspiratorial, my dear friend, they have an office. They have started. Everybody goes to work. Everybody gets paid. Done the story”.
The exchange revealed a range of perspectives on the PPC’s performance, expenditures, and challenges encountered since its reestablishment.
Patterson has strongly criticised the PPC over what he sees as its inaction over the investigation into the award of a pump station contract to Tepui. He has said it did not meet the requirement for the award as it was formed in August 2022. One of Tepui’s principals also has privileged access to Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo. Since October last year, Patterson has been pressing the PPC to probe the matter. The PPC has written the procuring agency, the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority and the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) seeking information to enable an investigation but there has been no further word.
Patterson has also strongly criticised the PPC over its handling of a complaint by Akamai Inc over the award of a contract for line equipment.
Last month, Patterson’s party, the Alliance For Change (AFC) criticised the PPC, accusing it of abdicating its responsibility in probing the complaint by Akamai Inc and ignoring its powers as accorded by the Constitution of Guyana.
Responding to statement from the PPC criticising Patterson, the opposition party charged that the Pauline Chase-led Commission which was established in July 2022 was ineffective.
Patterson had accused the PPC of “whitewashing” the complaint by Akamai Inc in relation to the award of the line equipment contract. The PPC found that based on the information provided by NPTAB, Akamai had not been compliant with two requirements. The PPC made no attempt to interrogate the NPTAB or the evaluation committee that scutinised the bids and said that it currently did not have the legislation framework for this.
The AFC vehemently disagreed with this, pointing out that the previous PPC conducted investigations which entailed speaking to the NPTAB and the evaluation committees.
