Latest update April 25th, 2026 12:35 AM
Latest News
- GMIN tightening grip on Guyana’s gold through 10% in another Canadian firm
- Wales gas project contractor accused of revolving corruption and financial deception
- We need justice for Adriana Younge!
- Oil rises above $106 per barrel as U.S., Iran deadlocked in Strait of Hormuz
- APNU flays Govt. over delayed GTE project as bills grow and benefits remain distant
Better was expected from our President
For a long time, the media and the public have been waiting on the President to hold a press conference. Ever since the revelations in the Robert Simels trial, both the media and the public were anxious to hear what was the President’s responses to these and a number of other issues, including the award of some controversial contracts.
The President was busy with a number of things and therefore the media had to wait until just before he left for the United Nations General Assembly before he hosted a press conference. He too must have been eager to clear the air on the number of accusations that were being hurled against his administration.
From all reports, he seemed confident and assured when he entered the briefing. Then he spoke, and disgraced himself.
During the press conference he noted that the media needed to learn more about the tender procedures. Do they? And is it as much as some people need to learn about tax holidays?
It is true that there is a point system in place for the evaluation of contracts and that the tenders are usually recommended (not awarded) by the evaluation committees based on a points system. However, the government is not obligated – never was, never will be – to go along with any recommendation simply because it scores the highest point based on technical merit and price.
The government simply does not have to go along with a tender simply because it is the highest ranked. It can reject all bids on the basis that it is above the floor price. There is precedent.
On more than one occasion where the government had to go back to tender simply because the original bids were too high. Thus, the fact that a bid is the highest ranked bid or the sole bid is no excuse for accepting it if in the opinion of the government it is overpriced.
In fact, Section 40 of the Procurement Act provides for the rejection of all tenders.
The President is a bright man and he is absolutely correct when he says that our laws speak about the lowest evaluated bid. However, that is not only what the law states. The very Section39 which deals with the examination and evaluation of bids dictates that where the procuring entity does not agree with the Evaluation Committee, it can issue an advisory as to whom it feels should be the lowest evaluated bid.
If it is also the opinion of the government that everyone should know the engineer’s estimate before the bids are invited, then the government should as a matter of policy when advertizing bids indicate to all bidders the engineers bid. Perhaps the media should pursue this with the National Procurement Board.
Better was expected from the President in response to the questions about the contracts. The President ought to have ordered an investigation into the contracts that were publicized in the newspaper. He should have, on the basis of this investigation, made a pronouncement in the name of the government as to whether these were overpriced and whether the government was obtaining value for money.
A few years ago, an inquiry was held as to the award of a contract in the legal sector, not on the basis of the price quoted but on the basis that there was no approved financing for the payment of the project.
A public officer received a slap on the wrist as a result of this action.
It is unacceptable in light of concerns worthy of investigations, for anyone to be suggesting that if this newspaper could source supplies cheaper it should tender for contracts.
Any government serious about transparency would ensure that concerns over certain contracts are addressed in such a manner that the average citizen feels that his interests are being protected and that value is being obtained for works done.
It is therefore highly unfortunate that the President did not use the opportunity at his press conference to indicate that he would be specifically addressing the contracts highlighted by this newspaper.
The President is right that during the era of the PNCR, the Auditor General did not investigate projects. He was right, but then in those days there was limited tendering and the Audit laws were not yet reformed to allow the Auditor General to perform value of money audits.
The laws are now reformed and therefore the Auditor General has the authority to investigate what is in the public domain. And so too is the Public Accounts Committee.
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.