Can an elected govt. manage without a no-objection clause?

Nov 28, 2013 Letters

---

 
Dear Editor,
I have been reading a lot about the delay and functioning of the Public Procurement Commission (PPC). Yes, I agree that the PPC should be functioning a long time ago with the appropriate laws and stipulations for the entire procurement process, along with the roles and responsibility of every group and individual, in this process, to be well defined.
The message I am getting is that the elected government of the day or any government in power, now and the future, will have no authority over the procurement process, even a cosmetic one, i.e. the tender board (TB) and Public Procurement Commission (PPC) will have full control over procurement.
I do not support this. For this letter, TB +PPC = PB (Procurement Body).
How will the government account to the people who put them in office to manage their business, and spend their money? If an elected government has no authority over the procurement of goods, services and works, then why do we need a government?
With a no-objection clause, the government A) cannot say to the people at a later date or when campaigning for a future election, that they had no authority to oversee procurement and blame everybody else for their failure and poor governance. B) will not have a hand to build a $100.00 project for 200.00. C) The TB and PPC will now have the authority to build a 100.00 project for 200.00. Therefore the government must have a no-objection clause, to see that costs are justified, and clauses that are loose, that can increase cost due to variation or extra work, are commented back to the TB/PPC.
D) PPC will have control, value for money, quality, quantity, but with a no-objection clause they cannot do what they want. E) Even the foreign-funded Agencies like the IDB have a no-objection clause, before they can release funds that have already been approved in the form of a loan.
The PPC and the tender board should be made strong, with qualified persons to oversee the entire procurement process of all goods, services and works for the country, and the government having a no-objection clause.
The following is my opinion:
1) Every government procurement “initiative”, is to be well defined and documented and have the procurement body review and comment. If the project is not well conceived and adequate information is not provided at the beginning the PB will have difficulty in evaluating the tender, in terms of value for money, scheduling, quality, budgeting and possibility of cost overruns, resources, risks, etc., and it will help to eliminate corruption.
“Initiation” of a project must address what, why, who, when, and where, be properly qualified and quantified, showing the needs (critical, necessary, or desirable) and the criteria for the final stakeholders’ satisfaction. The PB would review this initial project document and provide comments to the executing unit and the cabinet. The cabinet would provide their comments or no-objection, meaning that it has satisfied their manifesto or needs of the people. The initiative is now approved with a Class D estimate pending the feasibility study.
2) Terms of Reference (TOR) for the feasibility study is prepared by the execution unit for review by the TB for their comments which will be sent to the PPC for comments, and the PPC send all comments to the cabinet for comments and no-objection.
3) Ads are placed within Stipulations; the Feasibility proposal has reached the TB and is handed over to the executing unit for their evaluation and report. The report is presented to the TB for their review and comments, which is then given to the PPC to comment, and then the PPC send to cabinet for their review, comments and no-objection. All comments are collectively discussed and consolidated.
The feasibility report may show that the initiative/project is not feasible, due to value for money, a breakeven analysis was not satisfied, and may propose different alternatives, or agree that the initiative/project is feasible.
4) TOR for a consultant to design and supervise construction is prepared by the executing unit.
I recommend that a consultant who designs must not supervise the construction to avoid corruption. If the consultant who designs will supervise the construction, then he may over-price his “engineer’s estimate”, to pay off his government friends etc. The comments of the TB, PPC and cabinet are forwarded to the executing unit, to include all consolidated comments.
5) Ads for design follow the procedure, the TB give proposal to executing unit for evaluation and the report goes to TB, PPC and Cabinet and back to the executing unit, for preparation of final revised report.
6) Same procedure for contracting.
The people in the TB/PPC must be non-political, qualified and of sound character. Non-Guyanese should be used. I still believe in the white man. I was the former Director of PEIP in Guyana, and an employee of the Government of Canada.
Pt. Joe Persaud

 

 

---

---