PUBLIC procurement for government goods and services, to all intents and purposes, must not only be conducted in a system that is fair and perceived to so be, but it must also be done mindful of protecting the integrity of the system. One of the reasons individuals and companies are invited to bid for contracts is to avoid discrimination against any and to minimise or prevent claims of discrimination against any.The Public Procurement Act (2003) Chapter 73:05 has it, guidelines as to how the process will be conducted to determine the awarding of a contract to the most appropriate bidder. This law makes provision for checks and balances at various points and the right to appeal whenever one is aggrieved.

In the absence of putting in place every element of the law, the system and its management are exposed to decisions that are questionable and will bring them into disrepute. Where polarisation-racial and political- exist in our society, the absence of respecting and enforcing laws and procedures risks claims of being discriminated against and accusations that preferential treatment being given to the privileged, connected, or those who can bribe their way. Such perception, real or contrived, would compromise the integrity the system is designed to ensure.

Calls for the establishment of the Public Procurement Commission and its attendant arms ought not to be seen in any negative light by the policy-makers and current operatives involved in the awarding of contracts. These calls should be looked at as an opportunity to sanitise the process of public procurement and enhance the governance system. Most importantly, at a political level, it was a commitment which the APNU+AFC made during the campaign and is among the priority areas citizens have been clamouring for for years.

Failure to appreciate any or all of the foregoing would give rise to suspicion that the society is witnessing an exchange in the administrators of government, rather than the promised change to bring about good governance.

There are numerous allegations circulating in the society that contracts continue to be awarded on the basis of favouritism, curry-favouring, bribery and absence of due process and due diligence. In the instance of the Fedders Lloyd case in the awarding of the contract for the Speciality Hospital, there was an outcry that same was awarded under less than ethical practice.

This issue subsequently become an embarrassment for the Government of Guyana and the people of Guyana, given the image presented to international financial institutions (IFIs), when the World Bank made it known that the company is banned from any project funded by it between April 6, 2016 and April 5, 2020.

In the absence of adhering to due process and diligence as required by law, contracts can continue to be awarded at the society’s expense. An examination of the Procurement Act, Section 42(1) reveals that any tender identified as the lowest evaluated tender shall be accepted. This clause standing by itself, on every occasion, is being applied to determine who gets the tender. A sane approach in dealing with this clause, which there is confidence a Public Procurement Commission will seek to do, is for it not to stand in isolation from other factors such as engineering and other estimates.

This society has seen bidders deliberately submitting low bids in order to be awarded contracts. This has resulted  in  substandard work which not only fall apart, but inevitably cost the State and taxpayers more. Given this experience, the application of Section 42 (1) in the past was not necessarily applied to ensure quality consistent with Government Estimates, but used to justify awarding contracts to friends and cohorts.

Recently, a major contract was awarded using Section 42 (1) as a stand-alone requirement.  The contract was awarded to the bidder who came in at a cost 32 percent less than the Engineer’s Estimate, which is approximately one-third of what the government official engineering estimate reflected. Off-hand, this matter raises a red-flag, questions, and concerns.

From an engineering standpoint, it gives rise to the question as to the quality of work that can be achieved at a cost significantly lower than what a professional feasibility study said it requires to execute the project. Where funding is sourced from IFIs, it has implications for the country’s credibility. From a societal level, it hurts the image of government and angers the people in that continuation of decried practices bring into question the commitment of government, elected and appointed, to govern in the people’s best interest.

These are some of the unsavoury spill-offs the society, including the people and government, are being confronted with. Consequently, it helps when efforts are made to avoid instances of such nature and the allegation that the people’s business is not being conducted in the people’s best interest.