THE Haags Bosch landfill contract which was signed on 14th July is up in controversy. A group is claiming it has not been justly treated in the examination and awarding of this contract.This newspaper has, on more than one occasion, editorialised on the necessity of having the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) established. One does not have to be a rocket scientist — but just be paying attention to public perceptions, some of which are not without justification — to know that once Cabinet retains control of the tender process, it will continue to be marred by controversies and accusations.

Cabinet functions as an exclusive body, with the public becoming the beneficiaries of its ‘ins and outs’ based on what is reported by a member or attendee of this grouping. Past PPP/C governments have been accused of abusing the tendering process and dispensing contracts at times not in keeping with established laws and ethical standards. There are in the society –- and persons can easily recall — numerous cases of major contracts being single-sourced; equity and justice being absent in the awarding of contracts; shoddy work being done, or expired goods being supplied.

In fairness to the APNU+AFC government, when its parties were in the opposition, they condemned the practice of Cabinet awarding contracts, and pushed for the establishment of the PPC. The group, when in opposition, also pushed for the removal of the no-objection clause by Cabinet in the Procurement Act. What is clearly being seen is that, in the absence of the PPC, the present controversy should come as no surprise to the Government. Finance Minister Winston Jordan recently said that at least 70 per cent of the National Budget goes towards the procurement of goods and services. This is a tremendous amount of the nation’s financial resources. As such, it requires prudent planning and execution, so as to derive the best available goods and services for the people.

Should it be established, The PPC must be an organization that is open to the public; one presenting persons with opportunity to question decision(s), and allowing for mechanisms to be put in place to have decisions reviewed. This approach to handling the business of the State and Government lends itself to more transparency.

In the specific case of the Haags Bosch contract, what is obvious in the exchange between the Ministry of Committees and the aggrieved bidder is that the bidder has questioned the decision of the Government by writing to the said ministry. The bidder has said the ministry denied a request to engage it in a review prior to the signing of the contract. The ministry has not publicly denied this.

The absence of denial by the ministry can be construed as acknowledgement of the claim made by the bidder, and this highlights another concern in the delivery of governance. The people’s condemnation of the absence of civility and ethical conduct by government officials, elected and appointed, is still fresh in the memory of this nation. The APNU and AFC, when in opposition, had empathised with the nation and had expressed consternation when the stated concerns were practised.
Efforts must be made, as a matter of priority, to ensure ethical and civil practices in the conduct of government’s business; in the process, restoring the people’s confidence in their government.

With the recent establishment of the Protest Bid Committee (PBC), which is expected to hear the complaint, this arguably may be the first step in ensuring some integrity and sanity are returned to the manner in which State contracts are awarded.

It is expected that the protesting bidder would be given adequate notice to appear before the PBC, and preliminary meetings would be held with the bidder to outline the procedures that have to be followed. Given that this is the PBC’s inaugural meeting and all eyes would be on the panel, it should seek — in this environment where suspicions run high — to operate in a manner that, at the conclusion of its work and the publication of its finding, justice is not only served, but appears to have been served.

Where the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has failed to act with deserving haste to have the nominees of the PPC presented to Parliament to be voted on, now that Parliament is in recession, the opportunity to bring universal acceptance and credibility to the procurement process is once again delayed.

While the PAC chairman is from the Opposition PPP/C, it is not to the APNU+AFC government’s and Guyana’s advantage not to have the PPC constituted. This is an unfortunate place for the Executive and Legislature to find themselves; and the country cannot continue to be governed with these internecine allegations, conflicts and absence of constitutional bodies.