In light of “unquestionable power” of Bid Protest Committee…Goolsarran questions background, competence of appointed members

Oct 17, 2016 News

The recently established Bid Protest Committee is by no means any ordinary body.
According to the Public Procurement Act, the body is one that is supposed to review protests from dissatisfied suppliers and contractors.
The decision of the Bid Protest Committee is also said to be considered final and immediately binding upon the procuring entity.
This means that there is no recourse to the Courts if a supplier or contractor is dissatisfied with the decision of the Committee.
It is for this reason that Chartered Accountant; Anand Goolsarran said that the members of the Committee should be highly skilled and experienced in public procurement matters.
The three-member committee was established in July last and comprises Joann Bond as the Chairman and former GTT Manager Archibald Clifton and Insurance Broker Ewart Adams as the other two members.
According to Goolsarran, the committee is required to issue its written decision within 15 business days of the conclusion of a review, stating the reasons for the decision and the remedies granted, if any.
Damages may include only compensation to recover the cost of the bid preparation.
Additionally, Goolsarran said that the members of the Bid Protest Committee are to be appointed from among professionals who are particularly competent in the field of procurement.

Chartered Accountant, Anand Goolsarran

In this regard he stated, “It is not clear whether the members of the recently appointed Committee have the necessary backgrounds to discharge their responsibilities as adjudicators and final arbiters in a procurement dispute.”
The former Auditor General said that another area that needs to be clarified relates to the overlapping of the function Committee and that of the Commission. Goolsarran reminded that the Bid Protest Committee is responsible for the review of protests from dissatisfied suppliers and contractors, as provided for under Section 53 (4) of the Act.
However, Goolsarran said that the terms of reference of the Procurement Commission, once activated, will include investigating complaints from suppliers, contractors and public entities and proposing remedial action.
The Chartered Accountant said, “One rather suspects that this constitutional provision will have to take precedence over the Committee’s function as prescribed in the Act. But this is a matter that should also be taken up with the Assembly for the necessary guidance to be provided.”
Goolsarran also stated that the award of contracts in Guyana and the manner in which the public procurement system works has always been a matter of contention in several quarters. He said that there have been accusations of favouritism, along with other complaints of anti-competitive practices.
Goolsarran, who had spoken extensively on the matter, said that the weak systems of public procurement need to be addressed by the new administration, as they cost the country approximately $28B annually.
He then pointed to credible allegations of corrupt behaviour in public procurement. These included sole sourcing of drug contracts, contract splitting, inflated engineer’s estimates, evaluation bias on behalf of favoured contractors, the use of inexperienced contractors, the absence of competitive bidding in some cases and overpayment to contractors.
Goolsarran had said that at least US$140M is lost annually by looking at those areas. His estimation was gleaned from an overview of the Auditor General’s reports on the country’s accounts over the past few years.
He had also highlighted some of the glaring shortcomings of the NPTAB, among them the absence of District Tender Boards for Neighbourhood Democratic Councils; the failure to publish in NPTAB’s website; the award of all contracts between $200,000 and $15 million; the failure of members of the various tender boards to file financial returns with the Integrity Commission; and the failure to exercise due diligence in ensuring that evaluators had the requisite expertise.
Goolsarran had said, too, that there are certain parts of the Procurement Act which have not been adhered to since the Act came into effect on January 1, 2004.
These include ensuring the criteria used for selection are such that they do not discriminate against particular contractors and suppliers, and the award of contracts based on the lowest evaluated bid as opposed to the lowest bid.
Failure to look at these, he said, has also proven to be very costly to the country.

1 thoughts on “In light of “unquestionable power” of Bid Protest Committee…Goolsarran questions background, competence of appointed members”

Dennis Mckenzie October 17, 2016 at 8:46 pm

Anand must be aware,that even in the Courts, there are questionable decisions made.The first question to be asked is:what is the criteria to become a member of the Procurement Commission?Until that question is answered,I suppose you will never know,especially if you are a layman.