Opposition asks Procurement Commission to probe Sussex Street drug bond deal

Sep 27, 2017 News

---

 

 

The Opposition has written to the Public Procurement Commission (PPC), the body that overlooks state contracts, asking that it investigate a multi-million-dollar contract for a drug bond on Sussex Street.
In a released letter from the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, Member of Parliament, Juan Edghill, yesterday requested PPC’s Chairperson, Carol Corbin, to initiate the probe how Linden Holdings Incorporated managed to win the contract.
“I write you on behalf of the Parliamentary Opposition PPP/C to request that your Commission acting under article 212 AA (1) (h),(i), and (j) of the Constitution of Guyana, investigate the above named project.”
Edghill said that from information, the contract for the bond was sole sourced.
“Significant sums of public monies are continually being expended on its rental and other operational costs,” Edghill said.
On August 23, 2016, an unsigned copy of the contract was released to the public. The contract shows that the rental is for “office space” and not a bond for the storage of pharmaceuticals.
“In spite of the public statements made by the Minister of Public Health in the National Assembly and the specially appointed Cabinet Sub-committee that the Bond is PAHO/WHO compliant, the contract makes for no such stipulation. The contract also includes exceedingly generous conditions for the landlord for three years and includes a 12-month notice of termination,” the MP wrote in making his case for an investigation.
He noted that the issue with the Sussex Street bond facility came up for the first time in the National Assembly on August 8, 2016 when the Committee of Supply examined the supplementary provisions requested by the Government for money for several state agencies and projects.

“The National Assembly debated an allocation of some $87.5M with $25M already spent as a security deposit and $12.5M representing monthly rentals from August to December 2016. The sums were paid to the Linden Holding Inc.”
The MP said that it was only after multiple questions were asked and concerns raised, in mid-August 2016, that Minister Raphael Trotman, according to reports from the Department of Public Information, disclosed that a sub-committee was appointed by President Granger and comprised himself as the Chairman, Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo and Minister of State Joseph Harmon.
“The committee, after a review, recommended that the contract be renegotiated. During the debate on the 2017 Budget in December 2016, a parliamentary delegation accompanied by the media visited the Bond and found condoms, lubricants and some unused refrigerators, but no pharmaceuticals and medical supplies.”
Edghill said that with no further action by the government, on January 16, 2017, following the news of Minister Volda Lawrence taking responsibility of Public Health, the People’s Progressive Party repeated its call for the ‘drug bond’ contract to be rescinded. The Opposition said that the contract for the bond was for $14M.
“To date the Ministry continues to rent the Sussex Street facility. We are therefore calling for an urgent investigation into this contract…”
Among other things, the Opposition wants to know who made the decision to sole source and under what circumstances; the nature of the emergency what led to the renting of the bond; and how the company’s director, Larry Singh, knew that a drug bond was needed.
More specifically, Edghill asked PPC to investigate how the contract for a bond for the storage of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies was sole sourced from an entity that did not own and/or operate such a facility.
He also wanted to know: “Why did the contract stipulate rental of “office space” and not rental of a pharmaceutical bond? Was this price fair as it relates to market value for similar such facilities? Are the taxpayers getting value for money?”
PPC is also being asked to identify what breaches took place in the procurement process and to make recommendations for remedial action and preventative measures.
“We would be grateful for a definitive pronouncement specifically addressing if this award was done in a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost effective manner according to our procurement laws. We anticipate an independent and thorough review and await your findings.”
It is not the first time that the purchase of pharmaceuticals has come under question.
Under the previous administration, it was the source of much contention after it became know that companies associated with Dr. Ranjisinghi ‘Bobby’ Ramroop, a close friend of former President, Bharrat Jagdeo, received the lion’s share of contracts.
State auditors had pointed to significant cases of non-delivery and other even sole-sourcing.
It involved billions of dollars.

---

---