By Ken Ali
In its only annual report to date, the Office of Procurement Regulator (OPR) said about $5 billion in public contracts were awarded without competitive tendering processes.
A staggering $5 billion!
That means that relatives, friends and business associates of the authorities of the day possibly benefited from widespread bid- rigging and other fraudulent schemes.
The report hits out at “an excessive use of limited and non-competitive procurement methods.”
Then-Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley had earlier insisted the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Act permits the use of non-competitive tender awards.
The OPR also revealed “low overall” compliance by public bodies, with 60 entities flouting the law.
The OPR also faced challenges in obtaining data, and extensive reporting delays.
Government ministries and big-budget agencies, such as UDECOTT, NIDCO, and health authorities, failed to comply.
The OPR received more than 60 reports of bribery, corruption and bid-rigging, and seven matters were under investigation at the time of the report.
Regulator Beverly Khan said at that time: “If you keep getting reports on a particular entity or person, that might cause the OPR to stop and say we need to take a closer look.”
Still, there was no accountability with respect to $5 billion.
Now, the OPR is empowered under the law – Section 41 (1) and 43 of Part IV, to be exact – to investigate any suspected breaches, without a formal complaint.
Previous regulator Moonilal Lalchan had estimated the annual cost of corruption at $5.2 billion.
The formal complaints aside, there were reports of a lack of compliance, such as in the lease of a vessel, granting construction contracts, issuing quarrying deals, handing out retrofitting agreements – and more.
If those reports reached the procurement watchdog, they amounted to nothing.
When the current administration came to office, there were multiple revelations of corruption, including sole-select contracts, roll-over deals without public tendering, and arbitrary cost variations.
In several cases, family members and colleagues of senior officials of the previous government were the essential beneficiaries.
There is documented evidence of the ownership of the relevant contractors.
In recent weeks, the OPR has sprung into action, reportedly after formal complaints, with regulator Beverly Khan stating that breaches would make relevant contracts “void and illegal.”
A State enterprise must justify its tendering procedure, Ms. Khan stated.
Interestingly, both the current and past administrations used the public-private partnership model.
The uneven response from the OPR must be explained if the public is to trust this vital agency.
The agency has said it was hamstrung by a lack of capacity, in particular, insufficient employees.
But in an environment in which public procurement is tied to partisan politics, Ms. Khan and her team are under the searchlight for a lack of balance and fairplay.
Ms. Khan, a former senior public officer, has to assure the nation there is no prejudice in the operations of her vital office.
More than that, citizens deserve to know how $5 billion of taxpayers’ funds could escape scrutiny without the OPR breaking into a sweat.
That remains the burning billion-dollar national procurement puzzle.
