Yet again, the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) has been found flagrantly violating guidelines for the award of contracts. This time one of its evaluation committees was found to have awarded a $2.1b Guyana Defence Force (GDF) project to Kares Engineering Inc over a better bidder.
Short of US sanctions, it is unclear what it will take for President Ali’s administration to recognise the cesspool of corruption that has overtaken public procurement in the country as blatantly epitomised by the award of a pump station contract to Tepui Inc. What is clear is that the government will not be able to appear before the electorate next year with its usual pratings of incorruptibility and pretensions that there is no evidence of graft. The evidence has been available for some time and has appeared again in the latest findings of the Public Procurement Com-mission (PPC) following a complaint before it.
Correia and Correia Ltd must be complimented for lodging a complaint with the PPC after being aggrieved at the award to Kares. It is only through testing of the system that determinations could be made about the existence of problems in public procurement or outright chicanery. Too many bidders are reluctant to lodge complaints either because they are aware that a vindictive government machinery may target them or they are content to await their turn in the full knowledge that if the right people know them a contract might be steered their way. Public procurement has historically been the swamp that feeds corruption. With the huge oil revenues pouring into the economy it will be a veritable feast for those who know how to play the game.
Following its investigation, the PPC in its Summary of Findings on June 7th said “In light of (the) commission’s finding that the tender was awarded to the lowest bidder but not the lowest evaluated bidder as required by S. 39 of the Procurement Act, Cap. 73:05, the matter herein is referred to the Auditor General, pursuant to Article 212AA(1)(l) of the constitution”. It is left to be seen what the Auditor General’s office will do.
On March 18th, 2024, the PPC received a request for an investigation from Correia & Correia Ltd. into the award of Tender Reference No. 260/2023/53 – Provision of Works for Con-struction of Coast Guard Reinforced Concrete Wharf – Ruimveldt, Georgetown.
Attached to the correspondence from the complainant dated March 18th, 2024, were a completed “Application for Administration Review” Form, a completed “Bid Protest Form” and the “original complaint” lodged with the procuring entity, the particulars of which the complainant relied on.
Among other things, the complainant, who had bid on the said tender, alleged several breaches of the procurement process including that the awarded contractor, Kares Engineering, was “non-responsive based on the Financial Assessment within the Evaluation Criteria” and therefore ought not have been awarded the contract.
Based on information supplied by the NPTAB to the PPC, there were six bidders and all were deemed responsive. The six were R Bassoo and Sons Construction Company, S Jagmohan Construction and General Supplies Inc, Correia and Correia Ltd, Arjune Construction Ltd, Memorex Enterprise, Kares Engineering Inc, Ivor Allen and Gordon Winter Company Ltd.
Correia and Correia Ltd’s contention was that Kares’ bid was not responsive as it was less than 80% of the Engineer’s Estimate. This was the benchmark set in the evaluation criteria in the bid documents and the PPC agreed. Kares’ bid was at 77.8% of the Engineer’s Estimate while Correia and Correia’s was at 82%. Ironically, the PPC found that S. Jagmohan would have been the lowest evaluated bidder but it did not lodge a complaint.
When asked by the PPC to provide an explanation, NPTAB in its letter of April 3rd, 2024 to the PPC , extraordinarily asserted that the “Financial Assessment” did not form part of the Evaluation Criteria. It stated: “Regarding the financial assessment among the bidders, it’s important to clarify that the paragraph in the bidding document stating ‘Financial Assessment (b) Any bidder whose bid is less than 80% of the Engineer’s estimate WILL BE CONSIDERED Non-Responsive’ is not a part of the evaluation criteria. Discretion is exercised to ensure the best cost per value. All criteria were meticulously met, and there is no disadvantage in awarding the contract to the bidder, who is a reputable firm. The purpose of the 80% benchmark is not to eliminate bidders but to prevent unqualified ones from (submitting) unrealistically low bid prices that could lead to issues during the project’s execution.”
This pathetic respond did not find favour with the PPC which found that the financial assessment was part of the evaluation criteria. According to the PPC: “The aforesaid explanation of NPTAB appears to be inherently contradictory and inconsistent with the Report of the Evaluation Committee. On examination of the Report, the Committee having considered whether the bidders had satisfied the ‘administrative requirements’, then went on to conduct a non-financial assessment of the bids to determine which would then be considered for the next and final stage in the evaluation process of `Financial Assessment’”, the PPC said.
The PPC added that the Evaluation Committee therefore appeared to consider that the “Financial Assessment” was part of their evaluation process and made arithmetic checks.
In addition, the PPC said that the form of the subject document also does not support NPTAB’s contention of the Financial Assessment not being part of the evaluation criteria.
“The procuring entity having expressly represented that ‘Any bidder whose bid is less than 80% of the Engineer’s Estimate will be considered ‘non-responsive’ and that ‘The Contract would be awarded to the Bidder whose bid is determined to be substantially responsive to the Bid Document and who has offered the lowest evaluated Bid Price within range’ is bound thereby. It cannot arbitrarily disregard same and or purport to exercise a discretion which is not expressed and of which bidders (potential and actual) would not be aware”, the PPC asserted.
Correia and Correia further complained that the contract award was not published. This is important for the purpose of lodging an objection. It stated in its letter of complaint to the PPC dated March 5th, 2024, that a comprehensive search of the NPTAB website does not list this contract and attached an Excel spreadsheet of the CSV file of awarded contracts downloaded from the NPTAB website.
The PPC said that the complainant “appropriately expressed” that, “transparency is of paramount importance for contracts funded by public/government sources; and especially for public works contracts of this size, scope, and complexity.”
The PPC noted that the Procurement Act mandates that: The procuring entity shall publish notice of procurement contract awards within seven days of awarding such contracts.
In response to the PPC’s query as to whether the contract award was published on NPTAB’s website and if so the date of publication, NPTAB stated in its correspondence to the commission dated April 3rd, 2023, that- “… we would like to confirm that the decision regarding the contract award has been officially published on the NPTA’s website, as mandated by Section 11 of the Procurement Act, Cap. 73:05. You may access this information through the following link: https://www.npta.gov.gy/tenders-awarded/”
The PPC through its Operations Department, made a search of the NPTAB website on March 7th, 2024 for the subject contract award. The Report of the Operations Department by way of Memorandum dated March 26th, 2024, stated: “On March 7th, 2024, on the direction of the Chairman, a check was conducted to verify if the said project was awarded. It was not seen as the time on the website. However, the NPTAB officer was contacted, and I was told by the officer to keep checking. Further, checks were conducted on the said day, and it was then seen
posted on the website. When I checked the website again today, March 26th, 2024, the award was no longer there. However, there is no mechanism in place on the website to indicate the date when the award was published”.
When a check was later made of the NPTAB website, and as recent as May 23rd, 2024, the contract award appeared there.
The PPC said: “The publication of contracts is of upmost importance not only for information and related transparency purposes, but also for the lodging of a ‘Bid Protest’, the statutorily prescribed time for lodging therefor being calculated from the date of ‘publication of the contract award decision’”. This appearing and disappearing act further reduces the credibility of the NPTAB.
The pathetic attempt by the NPTAB to deny that the financial assessment was part of the evaluation and to paper over the matter by stating that a “reputable” firm had been chosen, underline that some contracts are clearly not being awarded on merit and that undermines the entire procurement system.
The opposition, the self-interested business bodies and civil society must do all they can to ensure that the government overhauls the procurement system to rid it of loopholes for corruption. There should also be a shake-up at the NPTAB.
Meanwhile, the PPC continues to disappoint in its investigations by not taking more decisive action to protect the procurement system. Its referral of its findings on the Correia and Correia complaint to the Auditor General’s Department will produce no immediate result. Further, its continued willingness to allow the NPTAB to escape with the most egregious excuses makes a mockery of its standing as a commission enshrined in the constitution. The public procurement system faces a clear and present threat under the PPP/C administration and radical action is needed to extirpate corruption.
