FIRST of all, I wish to make it absolutely clear that this PPP/C Government has no objection to the establishment of the Public Procurement Commission (PPC). In fact, one must recall that it is the PPP/C Government that sought to rein in tremendous and extensive reforms of the financial system and sector in relation to governance, transparency, and accountability.The modernisation of our procurement system and the comprehensive overhaul and reforms within the procurement system was led by this PPP/C Government at the time when we had the majority in Parliament. It is, therefore, a misnomer for Mr Ramjattan to question this Government’s commitment to accountability, transparency and, in this particular case, the establishment of the PPC.

However, as has been stated time and again, the Government has certain responsibilities guaranteed in the Constitution and the Procurement Act 2003. The Government also has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that it provides oversight of the expenditure of public funds. It is important that we understand that Cabinet’s “No Objection” or “Objection” role is NOT synonymous with an “Award” of a contract.
This fact is clearly established under the Procurement Act 2003. According to Section 54(4) Cabinet is NOT authorised to award a tender to suppliers or contractors. The power granted to Cabinet under the Procurement Act 2003 is limited merely to a review of the procurement procedures followed by the procuring entity.
In Mr Ramjattan’s article in the Monday 30 December 2013 edition of the Stabroek News, he had this to say in the opening paragraph: “Cabinet being able to make a complaint against an award to the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) which will then rule on it.” Here it is that Mr Ramjattan is ignoring the powers granted to Cabinet under the Constitution and the Procurement Act 2003.
Article 212AA(1) of the Constitution of Guyana specifies the functions and responsibilities of the Public procurement Commission and NONE of the thirteen (13) functions and responsibilities listed under Article 212AA(1) empowers the Public Procurement Commission to award or approve or grant a No Objection to contracts. This is a fundamental point that Guyanese must be aware of and which Mr Ramjattan very skilfully avoid.
Mr Ramjattan continues to create the misperception that the PPC would be an overriding and awarding procurement mechanism, but according to Article 212AA(1) of the Constitution of Guyana, the PPC does not have the right to give an Objection, a No Objection or grant an Award or Non Award of contracts.
The contention that the present procurement system does not allow for a supplier or contractor who is dissatisfied to request a review is also flawed. There are a number of safeguards in the present procurement system that can be utilised by any supplier or contractor in relation to any dissatisfaction they may have with the procurement process followed. For example, the present system allows for a dissatisfied supplier or contractor to request a review by the procuring entity within five days following the publication of the contract award. Further, under Article 212AA(1)(h) of the Constitution the Public Procurement Commission is empowered to investigate complaints from suppliers, contractors and public entities and propose remedial actions.
Now, the Constitution outlines what will be the roles of the PPC in relation to an Objection made by a supplier of contractor. So indeed the PPC would have that overarching role in relation to the review or investigation of any complaint made to the PPC, but it does not have any power to grant an Objection or No Objection which is necessary in the oversight mechanism for the procurement system as is in the case of hundreds of jurisdictions.
It is important to note that Cabinet’s authority to grant a No Objection is not something that is unique to Guyana. In fact, numerous jurisdictions as well as international financial institutions such as the IDB, World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development retains the power to grant a No Objection to any grant or loan that they are financing.
A brief synopsis of these rules are as follows:
* European Bank for Reconstruction and Development – Procurement Policies and Rules
Rule 3.31: The client shall submit to the Bank a report containing the results of the tender evaluation and its recommendation for the award of the contract. The Bank will review the findings and recommendations as the final step in establishing the eligibility of the contract for Bank financing.

* Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Procurement Rules – Policies for the Selection and Contracting of Consultants financed by the Inter-American Development Bank.
Rule 1.12: ADVANCE CONTRACTING AND RETROACTIVE FINANCING – The Borrower may, with the Bank’s approval, wish to proceed with the selection of consultants before the related Loan Contract is signed. In such cases, the Borrower undertakes such advance contracting at its own risk and any “no objection” issued by the Bank with regard to the procedures, documentation, or proposal for award does not commit the Bank to make a loan for the project in question.

If the contract is signed, reimbursement by the Bank of any payments made by the Borrower under the contract prior to loan signing is referred to as retroactive financing and is only permitted within the limits specified in the Loan Contract.

Rule 2.6 – … The Bank may agree with the Borrower to expand or reduce a short list; however, once the Bank has issued a “no objection” to a short list, the Borrower shall not add or delete names without the Bank’s approval. Firms that expressed interest, as well as any other firm that specifically so requests, shall be provided the final short list of firms.

* Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) Procurement Guidelines 2006
Rule 1.13: CDB does not finance expenditures for goods, works and services which have not been procured in accordance with the agreed provisions in the Financing Agreement and as further elaborated in the Procurement Plan. 15/ In such cases, CDB will declare a misprocurement, and it is the policy of CDB to cancel that portion of the CDB Financing allocated to the goods, works and services that has been misprocured. CDB may, in addition, exercise other remedies provided for under the Financing Agreement. Even after the contract is awarded and after obtaining a “no objection” from CDB, CDB may still declare a misprocurement if it concludes that the “no objection” was issued on the basis of incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information furnished by the Recipient of CDB Financing or the terms and conditions of the contract had been modified without CDB’s approval.

A perusal of the above Rules from the various international financial institutions indicate that the main objective of the retention of the “No Objection” clause is to ensure that proper procurement procedures have been followed and further that the Beneficiary Country does not alter with or modify any terms of conditions of the contract. Further, there is emphasis on capacity of the recommended entities and the issue of conflict of interests in relation to consultancies.

Similarly, the power to review granted to Cabinet under Section 54(2) is specified – “…the Cabinet may object to the award of the procurement ONLY IF it determines that the procuring entity failed to comply with applicable procurement procedures. “

It is interesting to note that Mr Ramjattan would continuously, and in an unashamed and unbiased manner, name companies and attack companies in relation to the PPC. This is indeed a bias on the part of Mr Ramjattan. One cannot call for the PPC and then demonstrate that the PPC would be a corrective mechanism for perceptions that he has. It seems as though Mr Ramjattan believes that the PPC, which will not be made up of any politician but comes from a pool of professional people, would be a board with a vendetta that operates under the perception or perceived notion that Mr Ramjattan seeks to purport.
Mr Ramjattan’s revelation in relation to the way he seeks to use the PPC is very interesting. As Minister with responsibility for the private sector, I find it disturbing that a public official, in this particular case, Mr Ramjattan, would seek to use the PPC to fulfil his personal vendetta against companies, naming and accusing companies of all sorts of breaches in relation to public procurement.
This shows that he has a real bias and a clear agenda in relation to what he wants out of the PPC. It is, therefore, necessary for all citizens and the private sector of Guyana to notice the double standard and hypocrisy in Mr Ramjattan’s position on the PPC. He continues to misrepresent the role of the PPC as well as the objectives of setting up the PPC.
Mr Ramjattan’s obsession with certain companies of the private sector – an obsession with his own propagandistic lies can set the PPC on a bad footing. May I remind Mr Ramjattan that the PPC should be an independent and professional body as opposed to one with political bias and political thinking that are based on perception and, in some cases, downright lies.

MOHAMED IRFAAN ALI, MP
Minister of Tourism, Industry and Commerce