THE AUDITOR GENERAL’S REPORT – PART 2

Aug 15, 2008 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Glenn Lall must be feeling like Julius Caesar. His newspaper is now being accused of “waging war” against the government.

No wonder Adam Harris is marching around the office all day. He must be thinking that he may soon become a General.

This latest salvo accusing Kaieteur News of waging war against the government was made following this newspaper’s article on the Auditor General’s Report for 2006, concerning the Ministry of Health.

The Minister of Health has taken umbrage at the assertion that certain procurement decisions by his Ministry in fiscal year 2006 were unlawful.

This led to the accusation that this newspaper is waging war against the government.
The waiver of the Tender Board procedures under which hundreds of millions of dollars in medical supplies were procured constitutes a violation of the law.

This is what needs to be addressed. But before I do so I invite the Minister of Health, who in his press conference indicated that he has always been receptive and open to the press, to indicate whether an incident that occurred years ago in relation to the payment of advances to the Ministry of Health by the Georgetown Public Hospital was covered by the law or whether it was just a mistake.

In relation to the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC), it was stated in the Auditor General’s Report that a Cabinet approval was used to procure drugs and medical supplies from specialized agencies.
Are these Cabinet waivers lawful?

And why should the hospital have been utilizing this mechanism when under Section 24 of the Procurement Act it can, with the approval of the National (Tender) Board, conduct procurement according to its own rules, providing that these rules do not conflict with the Procurement Act?

It is now time for the Minister of Health to examine the extent to which the purchasing of drugs, medical supplies and services by or on behalf of the GPHC were inconsistent with the law.

Specifically, the Minister of Health needs to consider whether a Cabinet waiver of Tender Board procedures is allowable under the Procurement Act.

Under just what conditions can any agency bypass the National Tender Board? The Procurement Act is very clear on this matter.

Public tendering is deemed to be mandatory under the Act. Section 25 says that public tendering is mandatory. For emphasis: public tendering is mandatory.

Sections 26-29 allow for the procurement other than through public tendering. However, it sets out strict and specific conditions which must be present before goods and services may be procured other than through public tendering.

What are those conditions? Firstly there can be a resort to restricted tendering if the goods or services required are by reason of being of a highly complex or specialised nature only available from a limited number of suppliers.

In this instance, however, all those contractors or suppliers should be invited to submit tender. Restricted tendering is also permissible if the contract is below a set threshold.

The law also provides for a system of quotations in the case where the value of the contract does not exceed an amount set in regulations.

In the case of single – source procurement – which is really the issue in contention – this is only allowable when the goods are available from a particular supplier or a particular supplier has exclusive rights to the goods, and when no reasonable alternative or substitute exists.

The Procurement Act also allows for single-sourcing in order to ensure compatibility with existing goods and technology or to ensure standardization, or in the interest of national security and defence.

It is difficult for me to imagine that any of the above conditions were present to allow for single-sourcing of drugs and medical supplies to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. But perhaps the Ministry of Health can edify us on this point.

I am therefore calling on the Minister of Health to explain to the nation on what grounds did Cabinet grant a waiver of Tender Board procedures to allow for the hundreds of millions of dollars in drugs and medical supplies from one supplier under an arrangement which we are told allows for the supplier to be paid in advance.

I am, in effect, calling on the Minister of Health to justify the legality (never mind the propriety) of the Cabinet approvals.

I am further calling on the Minster to inform the nation whether steps have been taken to account for the goods which the Auditor General in his report said was not accounted for.

I have no difficulties if medical supplies for the Georgetown Hospital are stored in the Ministry’s bond.
But the Ministry ought to confirm whether the drugs were stored separately or whether they were intermingled with the Ministry’s stocks.

Either way they would have to be taken into stock by the hospital which should therefore be able to account for them to the Auditor General.

By the way, why was external storage necessary? Was one of the justifications given earlier for single-sourcing not the fact that the delivery of supplies would be staggered over a period of time?

It is further said that all is fair in times of love and in war, so please answer me fast, Mr. Minister. The world is watching…and waiting.

---

---