PROCUREMENT Officer for City Hall, Jacqueline King, says that she is not comfortable with the fact that she is often times not given copies of contracts that City Hall enters into with contractors and other businesses.

Appearing on Monday before the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into City Hall at the Critchlow Labour College, King declared that the correct procedure involving the procurement of certain services is not always followed.

“I don’t like the fact that I am asked at times to prepare payments without all of the supporting documents. I cannot report effectively on the progress on any given contract if I don’t see the contract,” she related.

King explained that her department is responsible for the procurement of certain small contracts such as for the repairs of vehicles, repairs to computers, repairs to furniture and equipment such as AC units, refrigerators, gas stoves at day care services, and this is done using a three quote system
King established, however, that her department was not in charge of the procurement of goods and services that involve large contracts, these include works for drainage and alleyway cleaning, refuse removal and road repairs; procurement for these services fall under the Town Clerk’s Office.

Nonetheless, while her office does not award the contracts, the payment orders for all contracts, large or small, are still required to be prepared by her office.
“Other services like the drainage contracts, cleaning of drains, canals, alleyways, in terms of contracts for roads and refuse removal; that is done at the level of the town clerk office. I deal with the payment aspects of it. I prepare all accounts for payments as it relates to procuring goods and services,” she explained.

These contracts are not acquired by the procurement office because prior to payment, these contracts require that the works first be verified by the City Engineer Department, headed by City Engineer, Colvern Venture.

“Contracts for large works, drainage works and refuse removal large contracts… we make payments upon instructions, for example the drainage works contract – the instruction to pay on progress of works comes with instructions from the City Engineer Department. So I have to look for those things when a payment comes to me for those contracts,” King explained.

However, while her office does not award the contracts, they are required to be given a copy. In the past, all first time payments on new contracts would be accompanied by a copy of the contract.

“Sometimes I see the contract. When I started working in the unit there were times when I would’ve seen a copy of contract. Every time we have fresh contracts for refuse removal the first payment for that new contract usually comes with a copy of the contract. That used to happen but that is not happening anymore,” King declared.

According to proper procedure, there should be no case where a contract is not awarded when a business is employed to carry out a service for the MCC. There are alternatives in the case when emergencies arise and certain processes must be bypassed, but, according to King, even in those cases there is a procedure that is supposed to be followed. In such cases, where a company is not issued with a payment right away, the company still needs to receive a credit order from the council.

“What happens if there is an emergency, something needs to be done immediately. What is prepared where the item has to be taken without the procedure being followed to the wire… a credit order has to be prepared and that credit order has to be prepared by me but it has to be signed by the City Treasurer, that is authorising the entity to relinquish the goods or services to the [MCC] without payment. The item should not be collected without a credit order. Once a payment is not being made the item should not be acquired. The item should be acquired through the use of a credit order,” King further explained.

King was then questioned about a revelation by a contracting company, XL Engineering, which testified before the commission earlier on Monday that they were contracted by Town Clerk, Royston King, to do clean up works around the City. They were never given a contract, and are stilled owed some 90 per cent of its payments.

It was never established whether they have ever received any credit orders for their services, King could not recall if she ever prepared any documents for the company.
However, King said, if what the company said is true then several procedures were breached in the arrangement

“I can’t say that would be proper. It will not be in keeping with the proper procedure of the organisation if that happened. If there is no contract, if payment was done, if that was done the way you said it was done then that will be outside of the procedure,” she stated, however further noted that it is possible for the Town Clerk and City Treasurer to unilaterally make out payments.

“The town clerk, I guess, can commit the Council’s finances I guess in conjunction with the city treasurer, they can make that decision.”