Dear Editor,
My attention was drawn to the Alliance for Change’s (AFC) press statement dated January 13, 2024, on their Facebook page as well as on Guyana Standard on January 14, 2024 with the caption…”AFC response to PPC Commissioner Bhagwandin”. The AFC was referring to my letter that was published in the Stabroek News edition of January 11, 2024, in relation to the Akamai matter.
Once again, the AFC’s statement is fraught with inaccuracies. First and foremost, let me clarify that I did not attack my colleague, whom the AFC identifies as an AFC nominated commissioner. I merely pointed out the fact.
It would appear that the AFC has great difficulty accepting, comprehending, and appreciating the fact that the commissioner whom they (AFC) refer to as an AFC-nominated commissioner, is no longer an AFC nominated commissioner. Matter-of-fact, the said commissioner is a duly appointed constitutional officer (commissioner) of the Public Procurement Commission (the Commission) in accordance with the Constitution of Guyana.
Readers would recall that I had intimated that the AFC aligned commissioner may have been subjecting herself to political influence by the AFC, inter alia, executing the AFC’s political instructions at the Commission. As such, I drew reference to Article 212W (2) which states that…” the Commission shall be independent, impartial, and shall discharge its functions fairly”. Therefore, the commissioners ought to discharge her duties independently and free from political influence. Towards this end, the AFC has now vindicated my contentions and observations, by way of implicating my colleague, whom they consistently refer to as an AFC commissioner. Let me demonstrate hereunder.
In the penultimate paragraph of the AFC’s statement, the AFC contends…” [a]s asserted by Commissioner Bhagwandin that the AFC has a special interest in Akamai and not in Motiram’s case, this is proven by the email excerpts to be a grand lie, since Commissioner Rajcumar did object to the PPC’s summary of findings for both Motiram and Akamai case on similar grounds”.
Whose position is the AFC referring to? Are they (the AFC) adopting a commissioner’s position as their own, who ought to be independent? Visibly, there is no separation between the AFC, a political entity, and commissioner Rajcumar, an independent constitutional officer. For absolute clarity, the AFC never publicly expressed a problem with the case of Motiram, nor did they represent the case of Motiram, as they did in the case of Akamai within the public domain. The public records would corroborate this fact. Henceforth, I shall leave this up to the general public to form their own conclusion.
To the credit of commissioner Rajcumar, however, I should mention that at least for the first year since we were sworn in as commissioners of the PPC, she functioned independently, impartially, and fairly. She had always taken principled positions on matters. It was only in recent months that my colleague’s disposition observably departed from her usually principled and cogent articulations.
With that in mind, let me now address the inaccuracies in the AFC’s statement by outlining the sequence of events. The AFC cited commissioner Rajcumar’s statement via email to the other commissioners on December 14th and 29th respectively as follows:
“I have perused the report prepared. Unfortunately, I do not know what was the methodology used to compile the report. Internally, an investigation policy and procedure was developed by the Legal Department which has not been adopted as yet. I have stated my support for the said procedure which thoroughly outlines the steps to follow to conduct an investigation including a step for interviews with parties involved. Firstly, all contracts over G$15M are awarded by NPTAB, and as such they are required to provide the commission with all the requested information. Secondly, the copy of an evaluation report without all the supporting documents is not sufficient to make a determination as to the validity of this award – if there was an error in the preparation of the evaluation report as questioned by Mr. Motiram. This can only be discovered by a full examination of the supporting documents as to confirm the findings in the evaluation report. Complainants come to the Commission expecting that we would impartially examine their claims. Therefore, reporting what is contained in the NPTAB report without fully verifying the details is, in my opinion, doing a disservice to the complainant. As such, I cannot agree with the report findings. I suggest that we contact the complainant through written / oral interview to ascertain that what we received from NPTAB is what he submitted. In light of the foregoing, I am unable to support and append my signature to this report”.
“I have stated my opinion via emails and in the last Statutory meeting re Motiram summary of findings that the complainant, as a party, be engaged to corroborate on the findings in an investigation, hence to go beyond relying on NPTAB’s report, since PPC has an oversight function in the procurement process. I maintain this position with regards to Akamai’s summary of findings as I have stated before via email, hereunder that Akamai be engaged to collaborate on documents re NPTAB submission. For that reason, I do not agree with the Summary of Findings”.
It is imperative to note what were the sequence of events that preceded the emails cited above. In this regard, after receiving all of the documentations for review from the relevant agencies on November 1, 2023, the technical staff of the secretariat proceeded to conduct the Administrative Review, following which the reports were submitted to the Commission for consideration. Subsequently, all of the commissioners had the opportunity to review same prior to determining the matter.
At the Commission’s 56th meeting held on December 1, 2023; three of the five commissioners had completed their reviews. Thus, the reports of the secretariat was adopted by the said commissioners, save and except for myself and commissioner Rajcumar, as we had not yet completed reviewing the reports therefor. Consequently, the Commission requested that both commissioners Rajcumar and myself complete our reviews and submit our comments or objections by December 5th, 2023, via email. It was via email that I submitted that I concurred with the report.
On December 5, 2023, commissioner Rajcumar indicated via email that…” I have reviewed the evaluation criteria # 10 re reason for non responsive bidder and while a previous contract was not provided there was a detailed spreadsheet which listed several contracts which were [completed.In](http://completed.In “”) this context, I cannot determine what is “documentary evidence” and would rely on the legal department to interpret same.”
In response to the above from commissioner Rajcumar, she was reminded that the bid nonetheless failed on two grounds, hence she was asked to state her position on the second ground. In response, on December 6th, 2023, commissioner Rajcumar indicated via email that…” reference to criteria #17, there was no letter in the files which came from NPTAB, so that indicates that the bidder failed criteria # 17”. At this point, the Akamai and Motiram matter was considered closed having been fully considered by all of the commissioners. The next step that followed was to inform the complainants of the Commission’s findings and recommendations, to which draft letters were circulated and all five commissioners, including commissioner Rajcumar indicated their no objection to the letters.
In keeping with the decision of the Commission, two summary reports on the findings were drafted to be uploaded onto the Commission’s website. It was the draft reports on the findings, which came after the matters were fully considered and closed, that commissioner Rajcumar sought to virtually reopen the cases, viz-á-viz, her emails on December 14th, 2023, which preceded the Commission’s meeting on December 15th, 2023, followed by a reiteration via email on December 29th, 2023, as noted above. The contents expressed in these emails were completely new objections and effectively a new position by my colleague that was never brought up for deliberation prior to the closure of both cases (Akamai and Motiram) on December 6th, 2023. This was astounding.
In relation to my colleague’s contention via email on December 14th, 2023 (cited above), there are two points of correction that should be noted.
Firstly, NPTAB does not award contracts above $15 million, it is the procuring entities that award all contracts. NPTAB conducts the evaluation and make recommendations, which the procuring entities can object to, if it does not agree with the evaluation committee’s recommendations. In this case, pursuant to Section 39 (3) of the Procurement Act (Cap. 73:05) the procuring entities: “…shall issue an advisory recommendation to the Evaluation Committee regarding which bidder should be the lowest evaluated bidder, which recommendation the evaluation committee shall observe”.
Secondly, the commissioner contends that she was unaware of the methodology in the preparation of the reports. I am not sure how this could be possible. Paragraphs [15] to [17] of the report on the “summary of findings” outlined the methodology. Separately, the commissioner’s point of view on the draft document prepared by the legal department is noted, but that has not yet been adopted because other commissioners provided their inputs which have to be incorporated into the document by the legal department.
Additionally, I have noted an article in the Stabroek News edition of January 14th, 2024, in respect of the Akamai matter, whereby reportedly the Chief Executive Officer of the Hinterland Electrification Company, Mr. Horace Williams, sought to implicate the Prime Minister, Hon. Brigadier (Ret’d) Mark Phillips, by referring Stabroek News to the Prime Minister. To this end, the “excuse” provided by the CEO is unacceptable given that the procuring entity is duly and equally accountable together with NPTAB, pursuant to Section 39 (3) of the Procurement Act as previously referenced.
In view of the foregoing, I would like to urge the AFC to desist from seeking to influence the work of the Commission by allowing their nominated commissioner to function independently. Moreover, the AFC is reminded that the Commission is ultimately required to report to the National Assembly, wherein the Executives of the AFC are Members of Parliament. The National Assembly is the appropriate forum for the scrutinization of the Commission’s work by the politicians on both sides of the house. And, wherever legislative deficiencies are identified, then that becomes a matter for the legislature to remedy.
Yours respectfully,
Joel Bhagwandin
Commissioner, PPC
