Army still breaching tender board regulations -Auditor General’s report
Stabroek News
December 11, 2002
Significant breaches in tender board regulations by the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) have again been noted in the Auditor General’s report on the Public Accounts for 2001.
The report which was recently tabled at a session of Parliament at the Ocean View Hotel said that these breaches included the absence of competitive bidding and the splitting of contracts to avoid adjudication by the Central Tender Board (CTB). Furthermore, the report said that the involvement of the Departmental Tender Board “appeared to be (merely) cosmetic to facilitate payments by the sub-Treasury”.
Several examples were cited in the report. Under capital expenditure, $42M was voted to rehabilitate nine buildings at the GDF’s headquarters at Camp Ayanganna. The report pointed out that the contract was awarded by the DTB instead of the CTB and added “there was no evidence of public advertisement nor was there any reference to other bidders. In the circumstances, the basis of the award of the contract could not be determined. An Engineer’s Estimate was not submitted for audit examination”. The Auditor General’s report said that a waiver of the tender procedures was subsequently obtained from Cabinet.
The same situation prevailed for repairs to four buildings at Camp Stephenson but in this instance a waiver was not approved by Cabinet. It was also noted in the report that three of the contracts were awarded to the same contractor and physical inspection of the works revealed that there was an overpayment of $940,100 in relation to the WO’s and SNCO’s mess.
“It should be noted that generally the contracts used for these projects are deemed totally inadequate as there are no provisions for defaults....it is recommended that contracts to be used should be similar to those that are internationally accepted and amended to suit local conditions”, the report asserted.
Evidence of subdivision of purchases to avoid adjudication by the tender boards was seen in the buying of building materials for the rehabilitation of eight buildings. A number of purchases of the same items were made on the same dates from the same suppliers. The report said that the items purchased were however verified as being received by the GDF and properly accounted for.
Under current expenditure, the report noted that there were 61 purchases totalling $19.8M which were awarded by the DTB but there was no competitive bidding. Similar breaches were seen in the 1999 and 2000 reports of the Auditor General but the 2001 version said that based on test checks carried out the items procured were verified as having been received. There were other examples of the avoidance of competitive bidding.
Of 50 vehicles owned and operated by the force and for which log books were to be kept, only 13 logs were presented for audit. In the absence of the log books, the report pointed out that it could not be determined whether there was effective control over the use of the vehicles.
Included in the figure of $15.9M for cooking and welding gas was the sum of $2.672M for 131 cylinders of cooking gas. However, only 24 of these cylinders could be located. “It should be noted that this matter was brought to attention in my reports for the past six years and to date amounts totalling $4.68M were paid as rental for the same 131 cylinders. The officer in charge of stores could not give any explanation but however, said that the matter was being investigated”.
In relation to the repair of the revetment and the construction of a foundation at the Coast Guard headquarters two contracts were awarded in the sums of $8.4M and $1.8M respectively to the same contractor without adjudication by the CTB.
Another contract to the tune of $8.1M was awarded by the CTB. However, only an amount of $4.84M was paid from capital expenditure resulting in a total outlay of $15.139M which exceeded the CTB approval by $6.971M.
For the $8.48M contract, physical inspection revealed an overpayment of $1.13M since the 4” crusher run base course was deficient to that value. The report said that the construction of the foundation at the Coast Guard Headquarters is of a capital nature and should have been catered for under the capital estimates.
In relation to dietary supplies worth $210.2M, Cabinet had approved a list of suppliers. The report found that purchases were also made from other suppliers and the explanation from the accounting officer was that the regular suppliers were unable to meet the army’s needs.
In relation to the army’s air services, the report said that payments totalling US$92, 338 had not been confirmed as having been paid to an overseas supplier of aircraft spares based on instructions which had been given to the charterer in 1995. The report said that at the time of writing it was understood that the matter was still engaging the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Defence Board.
