Procurement Bill deferred for six months

Dec 20, 2013 News

---

 

 
– opposition agrees on condition that discussions continue outside Parliament

After an intense six-hour debate on the contentious Public Procurement Bill, Government’s Chief Whip Gail Teixeira made a proposal for the adjournment of the debate for another six months.

This was agreed to by the Opposition, but consent came under two conditions. Shadow Finance Minister of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), Carl Greenidge, said that the opposition was in favour of the adjournment provided that it does not affect the current work of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
The PAC has already started work on nominations for the Procurement Commission.
The second condition was that the deferral should provide for further discussions on the amendment.
Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, said that in 2003, the Bill came before the house and included in the provisions was clause 54 which had five subsections including Cabinet’s role of the review process of any contract which exceeded $15M.  It also articulated that it did not give Cabinet the role of awarding contracts.
The Act contains contradictions, said the Finance Minister. One section prescribes that the role of Cabinet be removed with the establishment of the Commission. Another section recognizes the role of Cabinet in the review process.
Eventually the Minister argued for Cabinet to maintain its “no objection role”.  Dr Singh then boasted that

the procurement process is one which can withstand any scrutiny.
He challenged the members of the House to compare the newspapers of 1980 with today’s, noting that there was a vast difference in terms of the number of published bids that could be seen.
He said that the media is invited to document this process and “I say this without any reservation that Guyana’s procurement system can withstand any scrutiny.”
Immediately, members of the Opposition blurted out, “That is utter rubbish. It is rubbish with an accent. What about Fip Motilall? The system is not transparent.”
The Finance Minister, who disregarded these comments, then made reference to other countries with more complex bureaucracies that have projects first approved by their governments.
Minister Irfaan Ali supported the arguments.  “Blow hot or blow cold, we will not let up on our responsibility.”
Greenidge then debunked the notion of a contradiction in the Act as being a “Nancy story.”
“You can’t pass the Act and then deem a part of it as an oversight.”
He argued that the current state of the procurement process of which Dr. Singh boasts, has been subjected to criticisms such as racial and political discrimination.
The work of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board is not reviewed by anyone, because

of the government’s failure to appoint an Ombudsman and a procurement commission.
“They expect us to believe that a board where its members are handpicked by Dr. Singh will not act in accordance with its wishes.”
The government, he said, is often known for saying one thing in public and doing another in private.  He added that in terms of legislative policies, before Ministers make decisions in terms of appointments, they are supposed to be advised by a technical team.
Greenidge said that when this is not done there are several abuses of the executive office.
He then proposed that the role of Cabinet in the “no-objection clause be rejected.”
APNU member Jaipaul Sharma contended that according to the Act, there are two review processes. The first one stipulates that Cabinet can object to the procedure of the awarding of contracts.
If a company does not adhere to all the requirements of a contract it can object to them being awarded the project. The second review is for the revision of projects above a certain threshold.
Sharma then contended that even if Cabinet wants its no-objection clause included, this can be phased out since the Commission, once established, can review and increase the threshold.
Alliance For Change Leader Khemraj Ramjattan and Attorney General Anil Nandlall took opposite positions on the issue.
Ramjattan reiterated the importance of the Commission to be established without the interference of the Cabinet. Nandlall focused on the fact that the Commission was a mere oversight body that can only monitor and not interfere in the procurement process.
This was quickly objected to by Ramjattan who said that functions of the Commission are very clear, and articulated that it can make such decisions.

Nandlall then referred to a recent decision by the High Court in favour of  BK International who was aggrieved over the awarding of a rehabilitation project on a road which was granted to another company.
This, the AG, said is proof that other mechanisms are effective.

---

---