Questions! Always, "there are more questions than answers." After having the chance to read and digest the report on the Public Procurement Commission's (PPC) inquiry into the G$865M pump station contract awarded to TEPUI GROUP INC. aka Guyanese Critic's outfit, a few worrisome things stood out.
In its report, the PPC stated that there was not much that it could do since the contract had "already been signed and activated." That being said this brings into focus one of, if not the most pertinent question of just how much and what type of due diligence was done by those entrusted with the awarding of contracts worth millions of dollars of the tax payers of Guyana, along with oil revenue monies.
Another and perhaps even more baffling finding is how a waste disposal company, Puran Brothers and an insurance company, Caricom General Insurance Company provided lines of credit to TEPUI GROUP. Neither of the two are licenced registered financial institutions. The evaluation committee, a sub-comittee of the National Tender Board if you will, was responsible for doing due diligence with respect to TEPUI's eligibility to be awarded the contact. Contract indications are that the evaluation committee has two civil engineers on board.
Apart from the technical aspects of the construction of the pump station, the specifics of which it is expected that the civil engineers and other members of the evaluation committee would be familiar, what other guidelines or rubric are mapped out for them to follow? Surely, the financial requirements and concomitant supporting documents, rank high in the realm of eligibility in the awarding of any contract whatsoever.
One must demand answers as to how a waste disposal company and an insurance company illegally provided lines of credit? Neither are authorised under the Financial Instutions Act in the Laws of Guyana to provide money lending services. It is simply mind boggling. With the rather large sum of money involved, how was there no oversight? Is is it not customary for an attorney familiar with financial regulations to go over the supporting documents provided along with the committee's due diligence report to ensure that the basic requirements are not only met but adhere to the laws of Guyana? Does the tender board not have an attorney to vet contracts before they are signed? If not, why not? Was the glaring fact that letters of lines of credit presented were from unusual and
non-financial institutions not evident? Something I dare say that could do nothing other than raise red flags. How is this not only possible but allowed to happen?
Had it not been for opposition MP David Patterson seeking an investigation, the suspect contract, along with its murky funding, would have flown under the radar. In October 2023, Patterson wrote the PPC, requesting a review of the contract on the basis of TEPUI not meeting the bidding criteria and thus rendering it ineligible to be awarded this contract.
This debacle now brings into question the awarding of other contracts. What else has slipped past due to a decided lack of scrutiny and apparent careless or deliberate disregard for the meeting of requirements?
It will be interesting to see whether this evaluation committee, whose composition includes two civil engineers, will be retained to evaluate the awarding of future contracts. In response to the PPC's report, the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board, whose Chairman of record is Tarachand Balgobin, undertook to review the language in the bidding document so as to be more precise when tenders are advertised in lots. Additionally, it would "remind evaluators not to exercise any discretion outside of the evaluation criteria stated in the bid documents."
The above begs the question whether the evaluation committee was in the first place unaware that its duty is not only to follow the criteria to the letter, but also within the scope of the laws of Guyana, particularly with regard to financial requirements.
So, what are the implications now? It is quite certain that following the issuance of the PPC's report, to avoid further breaking the law, the waste disposal company and the insurance outfit would have had to immediately cease issuing line of credit funds to TEPUI.
What sanctions will these two companies face? The Laws of Guyana, Financial Instutions Act Cap 85:01, states that any person in contravention is liable upon summary conviction to a fine of not more than two million dollars AND imprisonment for not more than a year. As there is little doubt that the law has been broken, the natural course to follow would then be the filing of charges. However, understanding the climate of a complete disregard for, and lack of accountability that is rife in Guyana, one would be foolish to expect anything much to result from this fiasco.
How will the TEPUI GROUP get the funding to complete the project? Is it in a position to go to any of the local banks to get a loan. One has to wonder what was the reason for that company not going to a bank in the first instance? Was it that TEPUI did not have sufficient assets to provide security for such an undertaking? Was it that TEPUI did not have any previous experience whatsoever, even in the construction of a fowl pen, much more a pump station? Was it that the principal Mikhail Rodrigues does not have the bare minimum of qualifications in project management? How does a person who has not only publicly, but repeatedly insisted that the rocks used on the coastline for purposes of sea defence "is riff raff," be entrusted with a government construction contract worth hundreds of millions of Guyana dollars? Of note, is although it was revealed that although TEPUI was the third lowest bidder, it was nonetheless awarded the contract. The PPC's report also indicated that TEPUI failed to submit any financial statements and also did not provide evidence of ownership of all of the equipment to offset the multi-million dollar contract.
As a part of the tendering process, the bidder is required to submit documentation in support of "specific construction experience." The requirement is clear that said experience has to show that the bidder has COMPLETED one project of a similar nature within the past FIVE years. Unsurprisingly, the PPC chose to go with a broader interpretation of similar and declared that "it was not unfair as it made it more competitive, permitting more bidders to be eligible." Continuing in the vein of wider interpretations, somehow the unambiguous requirement that bidders have to produce evidence showing that a similar project was completed within FIVE years, also did not appear to warrant strict adherence. This is obvious as the supporting documents, that is the two contracts submitted by TEPUI, stated that the construction of a wharf at Providence and the upgrading of roads in Great Diamond are only thirty per cent and twenty percent completed respectively. That being the case, how does the obvious incompletion of the similar projects, serve to meet the requirement of being completed within the last FIVE years? The projects are clearly not even halfway to being completed. Yet, in its wisdom, the evaluation committee saw fit to award TEPUI the pump station contract. First, one has to now question if they were not familiar with the bidding process requirements and if so why then are they on that committee? Second, if they are familiar with those requirements, why then did the evaluation committee go ahead and select TEPUI which evidently failed to meet the minimum requirement in that regard?
Furthermore, the dates of the contracts TEPUI submitted as evidence to support its bid for the pump station must be highlighted. The contract to build the wharf at Providence is dated MARCH 27th, 2023 and the road contract at Great Diamond is dated FEBRUARY 23rd, 2023. Interestingly, the pump station contract was reportedly awarded to TEPUI, AUGUST 14th, 2023. Given the aforementioned, how was it that this evaluation committee still gave the go ahead? That in itself calls for a separate investigation of the evaluation committee of the tender board.
Notably, this is a company established in August of 2022, one year before the award of the contract; its principal’s unflattering resume reads thus: previously sold juice out of a cool down cart in the vicinity of Robb and Wellington Streets; acquired a hobby of ambulance chasing accident scenes with a video camera and then catapulting himself on the airwaves -potty mouth and all; gate crashing government press conferences as a great pretender of a journalist sans any journalistic bona fides. Read my lips and answer the question. How can this company be awarded THREE contracts in the same year? I, along with other right-thinking folks, am missing some pertinent facts with respect to understanding how these egregious occurrences take place regularly in Guyana.
If this is not a wake up call for a review of the procurement process in its entirety, along with the workings of the National Tender Board, then I don't know what is. Surely, there is enough evidence of financial impropriety and failing to meet requisite criteria to warrant drastic changes at every level. Going forward, there must be provisios to allow for the cancelation of contracts for such appalling breaches.
The foregoing failure is a slap in the face of Guyanese. Additionally, the sad reality is that no one is likely to face consequences commensurate with the serious and purportedly illegal financial transactions. It will be business as usual in the Great Land of Guyana. What a sad indictment for her people.
(Photos from L-R Stabroek News & News Source)
Comments