PAID ADVERTORIAL: Government’s Pays 24% More than Market Price (Part 2)


roseau-project-300x283Part 2 – Questionable Procurement Practices and Contract Awards.

  1. 1. The Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica brought the Public Procurement and Contract Administration Act to be passed in parliament because either:
    1.     a) It saw it as the right and appropriate way to go, or
    2.     b) It was forced to do so against its nature.
  2. 2. If (a) is correct, it would have as soon as possible commenced aligning government procurement practices with the requirements of the Act and sought to ensure that the purposes of the Act were gradually being achieved even before the coming into force of the Act.
  3. 3. It must be remembered that:
    1.     a) The Act was assented to by President E.T. Williams on 21st Jan 2013, and that it can only come into force by Order of Minister of Finance or by the 21st Jan 2015, whichever comes first.
    2.       b)That the private sector led by the BCAD has repeatedly asked the GOCD to

 

i.    Put all that is necessary for the coming into force of the Act,

ii.    Involve the private sector in the process, and

iii.    Begin aligning the government procurement practices with the requirements of the Act.

  1. It must be noted, that the grand majority of the requirements of the Act are typical internationally best practices aimed at obtaining best value for money by the government and stemming corrupt practices.
  2. Recent public procurement practices are far removed from the required practices under the Act, and by extension typical open and transparent procurement practices.

The Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica, led by Roosevelt Skerrit, has awarded a contract for the construction of the first phase of the Roseau River Promenade for 24% or approximately EC$108,000.00 more than the lowest competitively priced tender!

This situation clearly highlights why BCAD has taken the nationally responsible stance to press the government to pass and then enforce the Public Procurement And Contract Administration Act.    As BCAD’s president Stewart Paris said to a reporter at its last press conference: “If the procurement bill is enforced, there will be less reason to ask about corruption!”.    

Eight weeks after the tender process ought to have been completed, and 5 weeks after ACE Engineering Ltd requested the status of the works for the first of a number of times, we are still not given any status on the tender process.

Given the fact that the Contract was awarded to a firm for which George Nanthan is reported to own shares, it is rather obvious that all other tenders were rejected.

If the GOCD passed the PPCA Act because it saw it as the right and appropriate way to go, it is a reasonable assumption then that the GOCD would use the requirements of the Act as the yardstick to guide public procurement process, and appropriately to guide the evaluation of tenders and award of all procurement contracts.

What does the ACT say about Award of Contract?

Sec 59 (1) of the Act states:

(1) Subject to this section and section 60, a procuring entity shall award the procurement contract to the bidder who submits the lowest evaluated substantially responsive bid which meets the qualification criteria specified in the pre-qualification or bidding documents.

We would want the Technical Services Division to say where ACE Engineering Ltd’s was not substantially responsive, or where we did not meet the qualifications required in the bid.

What are the circumstances by which a bid should be rejected?

Sec 57. (1) The procuring entity shall reject—

(a) every bid received after the closing date and time for the submission of bids; (the record shows our bid was received on time)

(b) any bids having a major deviation with respect to the factors set out in subsection (2);

(c) the bid of any supplier or contractor who does not accept the correction of a minor deviation in that bid; (Covered under sec 56 . we were never approached about correction of minor deviations – which often are arithmetic errors)

(d) a bid which is not accompanied by the bid security required by section 47(1). (none was required)

(2) The following shall be considered as major deviations in a bid –

.     (a)  with respect to the clauses in an offer -
(i) unacceptable sub-contracting, alternative 
design and price adjustment, and 
(ii) where time is of essence, unacceptable time line; ( we offered no subcontracting, no alternative designs and the time of all three lower bidders was 13 weeks)

.      (b)  with respect to the status of the bidder, a bidder who is ineligible, uninvited or not pre-qualified; ( as bidders on the first public invitation we were found qualified enough to be invited again)

.      (c)  with respect to bid documents, an unsigned bid; and (the record indicates that our bid was signed)

.      (d)  with respect to time, date and location for submission of bids – 
(i) a bid received after the date and time for submission of bids as stipulated in the bidding documents, and 
(ii) a bid submitted at the wrong location. (Our bid was received at the right location, on-time and opened at the tender opening session)

The sections 57 and 59 of the Act referred to above are the normal internationally accepted requirements for best practice of bid evaluation and award. We expected, albeit naively, that the Technical Services Division would have functioned as any professional entity, at the level of world class consulting firms.  It would be very sad indeed if we were wrong in our reasonable assumption, given the knowledge and experience of the head and senior officers of the Technical Services Division of the Ministry of Public Works and Public Utilities.

If therefore, the GOCD rejected the tenders of the two lowest tenders without following the requirement of the Act which is on the brink of its automatic coming to force by law, then it is reasonable to conclude that it is rather apparent that the GOCD did not willingly lead the passing of the PPCA Act; it was and still is not the nature of this administration to pass such a forward looking Act by which it enshrined internationally best public procurement practice into law.

If this was an isolated case, then probably the GOCD could be given the benefit of the doubt.  However, nineteen (19) months after the passage of the Act and its assent by the President, current public procurement practice in Dominica is, rather than being progressively aligned with the spirit of the Act, is increasingly opposite to good and transparent public procurement practices in that there are blatant practices which are clearly contrary to the intent and purposes of the Act.

Reference is made to a press release by the Office of the Prime Minister – Wednesday, August 20th, 2014 and reported by Dominica News Online which states, “Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Roosevelt Skerrit has approved five contracts for infrastructural works across Dominica, …. [totalling EC$] $4,058,770.48 and will cover work in Delices, Morne Bruce, Pointe Michel and Portsmouth.”  The article went on to numerate some of these contracts awarded by the Ministry of Public Works and Public Utilities.   We also refer to works undertaken at Tibay Portsmouth, Road rehabilitation works in Grandbay, Works on the General Post Office in Roseau, Pond Casse – permanent structure at a site in Williams, Pont Casse, where two national footballers lost their lives last year, Rehabilitation works on the Penville to Vieille Case, the apartment building at Silver Lake, among many others.

  1. A common thread with all these works is that these procurement events were not advertised and that the tender process, if existed, were limited to a few persons some of which were repeatedly invited to tender in preference and at the expense of other capable operators throughout the island.
  2. The Act which is waiting to come into force by instrument of the Minister of Finance requires that:

The Procurement Entity affords all capable Contractors equal opportunity to bid for the works.

Reference is made to Section 33 (1-4) of the Act.

We challenged the GOCD to prove that the open competitive bidding would not have been efficient and practical for the procurements in question; that there have been sufficient grounds not to utilise the open competitive procurement procedure.

It is very reasonable to believe that the many restrictive procurement procedures undertaken over the last 5-10 year have been aimed at denying an opportunity for participation of certain contractors, or limiting participation to only a chosen few, both of which affects the ability of the Minister of Finance to ensure that the best value is obtained for the procurement dollar (Sec 3, h of the Act).

But just probably, financial prudence and efficiency is not the mandate or skill of the Minister, or rather it may not be his nature to save the taxpayer any burden.

By simply arithmetic one can conclude that just on the projects mentioned in the 20th August press release, the GOCD could probably have spared the taxpayer at least EC$1M in taxes.  The only way to disprove this is to cancel the awards and institute the appropriate best practice public procurement practices for these purchasing events.  The GOCD is challenged to prove otherwise.

Given all this, it is concluded therefore that the GOCD passed Public Procurement and Contract Administration Act because it was forced to do it against its nature, not because it saw this as the right, progressive  and appropriate way to go.

It is appropriate to end by repeating the words of Stewart Paris:

“If the procurement bill is enforced, there will be less reason to ask about corruption!”. 

Anthony E. Le Blanc.

Copyright 2012 Dominica News Online, DURAVISION INC. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.

Disclaimer: The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of DominicaNewsOnline.com and its parent company or any individual staff member. All comments are posted subject to approval by DominicaNewsOnline.com. We never censor based on political or ideological points of view, but we do try to maintain a sensible balance between free speech and responsible moderating.

We will delete comments that:

  • contain any material which violates or infringes the rights of any person, are defamatory or harassing or are purely ad hominem attacks
  • a reasonable person would consider abusive or profane
  • contain material which violates or encourages others to violate any applicable law
  • promote prejudice or prejudicial hatred of any kind
  • refer to people arrested or charged with a crime as though they had been found guilty
  • contain links to "chain letters", pornographic or obscene movies or graphic images
  • are off-topic and/or excessively long

See our full comment/user policy/agreement.

27 Comments

  1. mindful
    September 7, 2014

    why is the procurement bill EGO centres only around 3 builders. THESE BUILDERS DOES NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF BCAD’s MEMBERS and procurment of government business . My understanding of knowledge from Cambridge University in terms of economics, The Procurement Act will affect every department in Government, will please 3 builders and will upset the procurement system which is already in place. Yes, it is not because the word procurement dont exist in a Ministry name. Government have officers who procure goods very well for the country and the custom services cooperate at optimum level when government goods are forth-coming and /or landed for delivery. Why is the government being pressured to push down the throat of the Departments of Ministrys about a common word PROCUREMENT which concerns only about Tenders for Construction. Procurement of Government goods and services are being controlled to be met by GOVERNMENT OFFICERS to protect the citizens of this country and only if a need overwhelms the Department , the Government reserves the right to source services from outside. CAN ANY ONE IMAGINE THE ENDEMIC HORRORS THAT WILL ARISE WHEN BECAUSE GOVERNMENT HURRIEDLY LISTENS TO THE ” BAWLERS FOR SO CALLED PROCUMENT ACT ” AND RUSH A BILL THRU THE HOUSE TO PLEASE NON-COMPARTIBLE SUBJECTS, THEN START TO TENDER FOR MEDICINES AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES OUTSIDE OF THE CONTROL OF THE OECS/PPS PHARMACEUTICAL PROCUMENT SERVICES! CAN ONE IMAGINE WHAT CRISIS WILL OCCUR WHEN PHARMACEUTICAL DRUG SPECIALISTS OF THIS COUNTRY ARE IGNORED AND FRIEINDS OF THE “BAWLERS FOR PROCUREMENT” START TENDERING FOR SUPPLYING MEDS TO THE HOSPITAL. ?CAN ONE IMAGING WHAT HAPPENS WHEN EDUCATION SPECIALISTS ARE BEING IGNORED AND ONLY FRIENDS WHO KNOW FRIENDS OF THE “bawlers for Procurement ” start tending for education material for our students? CAN ONE IMAGINE THAT PROCUREMENT FRIENDS OF THE “friends and bawlers for procurement'” ordering AMMUNITON, PRODUCTS FOR FINGERPRINTING ETC FOR THE CDPF? We are really searching for intricate and culminative problems in this country. Mary Eugenia would never bow under this pressure!!! Roosie Douglas would say if you cannot what govt is offering, go at your mothers home!!! but others perceive they are creating unity, well let us see??? so if an open bill is being passed for procurement of ALL GOODS and SERIVCES then all those in the public service that were trained in the UK , U.S, Cuba, Canada etc cannot continue to procure so start to pack their bag because the “ACE CARD” is coming.

    The POLICY MAKERS if they are brave,MUST now advise the so called of Procurment Bill Pushers especially the Builders to put their house in order first and foremost; before they constantly blackmailing the govt. The so called big contractors have not yet demonstrated sacrifice,love and care for trademen. The building capacity rate is 0. BCAD does not and will not invest in themselves not even to house their own office, far less to help grow trademen, how can they pressure government about procurement, they must be lead by example. GOVERNMENT,Put the Bill on HOLD until all adjoing facets to govt are in order! the government have nothing to loose, We have a few good examples who look ready to work with government in procurement ; JAYS BOOK STORE, E.H.CHARLES, ASTAPHANS, RUDOLPH THOMAS, D SUPPLY, CENTRAL MEDICAL STORES(OECS/PPS), JOLLY PHARMACY, NATURE PAPER PRODUCTS ,DAPEX , BURTON ELECTRICALS,KUBULI WATER, MARINOR ENTERPRISES, DOWASCO and others.
    These firms have invested heavily ,employed many on a permanent, give their workers uniforms and allowances, help finance education of some of their employees; and are ready to serve; therefore government your country is not quite ready for procurement bill. Can you safely say that you have 70% local investment in your country. The answer is NO. Open Procurement cannot come in yet, the local niche is not competitive enough for you to get a good deal and both the consumers and the local government department of this country will suffer especially Health.

  2. Forever Amber
    September 4, 2014

    A very detailed submission. Delay in activating the Act brings back memories of the same delay in implementing the IPO Act, which they now want to repeal. What is their message here?

  3. Peeping Tom
    September 4, 2014

    Tony, you do realise that you are basing your arguments and your huffing and puffing (as usual) on a document that is not yet in force, do you?

  4. Doc. Love
    September 4, 2014

    Mr. Linton has given his support to the act and has promised when his Government gets into office, the act will be passed. Therefore, Mr. Le Blanc should have a little patience. If he continues to speak truth to power, he will be massacred by the animal show. As far as Tony is concerned, no one can force the Government to award a contract to the lowest bidder.

  5. tony
    September 4, 2014

    very sad man.

  6. shaka zulu
    September 4, 2014

    Mr. Leblanc you get an A plus. I am trying to find another letter before A. As someone who has worked for 10 years in the environmental and engineering consulting world I understand you clearly. This is not about party or politics, but sound public/private business practices. What you are doing is in effect, driving public policy in your capacity. This is what every educated and patriotically minded Dominican should do. The reason for the procurement law is simply to protect the public and ensure the tax payers get value for there money. This is prudent financial responsibility in action. If after 19 months why is the PM waiting to make it active. The only explanation may be they are reviewing qualifications of prospective firms. However, based on what you wrote that does not seem to be the case.
    What I hope our people learn from this is the right and power we have as a people to direct public policy in the interest of our country and to standup for what is right.
    What you have just done sir is powerful. Let others follow. It is time to hold our leaders accountable, I do not care if is red, green or blue.

  7. Peter J
    September 4, 2014

    This is not a battle for Anthony LeBlanc alone, he must be applauded for exposing blatant corruption, but the others affected must join in solidarity for a just cause.
    Where are the architects, contractors, engineers and other tradesmen who are affected by the nepotism of this government? The time is nigh for the silence to be broken, the government needs you now more than you need them, they are in a begging mode to find votes, this is an opportunity that comes once every five years.
    Get up, truck drivers, material suppliers, and all involved in construction, this is your time for the government to listen! Demand the stoppage of this project and reopening of the tender process.
    Team Dominica you have a moral obligation to lead the charge.

  8. agreed
    September 4, 2014

    I must Speak…I must speak..ahaaaa

  9. roseau
    September 4, 2014

    It is not about ACE didn’t get the contact so they are upset. He is saying what is right, projects these days are only going to operatives of the DLP. Is Nathan a civil engineer, I know he is a backhoe operator. How does he get such a project that requires a high level of engineering. It is just blatant corruption, but some people know and are still screaming LABOUR, one day you will realise and it will be to late. Time for Dominicans to wake up.

  10. Oh No
    September 4, 2014

    I am awaiting a response from the government. Facts are stubborn things. We need a timely and honest display of accountability and fair play to be exhibited now.

    • icepop
      September 4, 2014

      OH! Noooo! You joking man! waiting? but the Chief Engineer for the government have already responded; oh you did not hear Tony Astaphan response to Leblanc on the radio- man you joking; Tony is the man boy! I just haven’t heard him yet on the issue of Ebola and on ‘ Chick’ he maybe waiting for his MD (medical doctor)- but if they doh give he will definitely speak on it !! wait and you will see what happens next.

  11. FORKIT
    September 4, 2014

    1)1.4m for a box culvert at secret bay. who get that it…. a company with questionable ownership, a guy who was an ordinary civil servant 14 years ago who could not even buy a good used car.

    2) 1 million dollars project for a box culvert at pond casse where the two young men died, a culvert with materials thrown on it to make the height of the road.

    3) the l’abatior, more questionable dealings with containers costing hundreds of thousands…

    yet people seeing those things and still saying labar, labar…its not the corrupt politicans that will feel it but the poor people.

  12. ??
    September 4, 2014

    Tony, few questions:
    1) How many of these projects that you referenced went to foreign contractors?
    2) Would you have complained had you gotten any of these contracts?
    3) Are you willing to give a similar explanation for the next contract that you win stating why you should or should not have won it?

    The bottom line is that you win some and lose some. Stop crying like a baby. Do you think you will get all the contracts if UWP comes into power? Stop the politicking and move on. But again, as a pastor has said, this is the “silly” season (election season).

  13. Chupes
    September 4, 2014

    Very interesting and informative article.

  14. Red
    September 4, 2014

    Mr ACE, I don’t really think the Government of Dominica owes you any explanation at present, you quoted the new procurement Act which will really come into force by Jan 2015. So under the Act you are allowed to challenge the award of a contract, however since it is not yet Jan 2015, you request cannot be adhere to. Legally right now the Government owes you nothing, no explanation. Mr Skerrit does not decide who gets contracts, it is the technical staff who recommends to Mr. Skerrit who to award contracts, based on criteria and bid price. You needed to write to the Ministry responsible before coming to the public with this, I am sure there is a tender report and they would be able to tell you why your company did not qualify. Do you think the technically people are so mad that they would just recommend a higher bid for the award. There is some underlining reason why ACE was not awarded. ACE may not have met all the criteria. You cannot take them to task either because the Act is not enforced yet!!!!!!!! And under the present law you have no legal right to challenge the GoCD. No one owes you a response either. It is does not always mean the lowest price is better price Sir. What really is your point. There is always an in-house estimate that guides the cost of any project, so what if the in-house estimate was closer to Mr. George Nanatan’s bid. Who would be the best person to award too…….. the person who has the best price against the estimate. Yours might have been much too low. I just hate all this stupidity in this country people are just too free. Skerrit gets blamed for everything and things he does not even have control over.

    • *
      September 4, 2014

      AMEN – The lowest bid may just mean a lower quality of work. e.g a 50inch television is sold at an average price of $1000.00 in Dominica except the Chinese store have one for $250.00. As a home owner wanting good quality and price, where do you BUY?

      • john paul
        September 4, 2014

        well we shall be watching this contractor,let us see if he completes the work in the prescribed time or if he does like
        Gadakhan on the Belles road

    • Engineer!
      September 4, 2014

      @Red: What do mean when you say “Best Price?”
      Ace could have lowered the price because he just recently completed a Sea wall and has most of his materials where he does not have to purchase. They also have a concrete plant ( another cost saver).
      As a matter of fact the rates for steel, form would be at the least same as the wall they recently build. The concrete would probably change slightly since we are talking about fresh water vs Sea water. Sea would require a more high strength and quick curing concrete. Nanton have not been so exposed to those type of projects and would therefore have to purchase all his materials and start from “scratch.”
      If Nanton has to start from scratch then one would expect that his unit price would be higher as compared to both PWC and ACE. Both PWC and ACE has been tendering on far many GOCD jobs than NANTON and would have a much better appreciation for the rates which are most likely to be used on projects. There is no rocket science nor a reinvention of the wheel.
      Other cost centers: Nanton is not an Engineer nor a Surveyor and therefore would haveto engage one (additional cost).
      Nanton does not produce redi-mix concrete and would have to outsource it( More cost)
      Nanton does not have the forms(another cost center)
      All three parties would have to purchase the steel locally and therefore we can safely say that they share the same cost. Who now do you think has the most competitive advantage?
      Finally you talk about blaming the technical staff? well boss ask who commanded the same staff to give the project in Pond Case and Secret Bay to those who are presently doing it. The ONE IN CHARGE( talk it to the bank).
      Therefore my only conclusion is just simply” Jobs For The Boys.”

      • Red
        September 5, 2014

        You don’t have to be an engineer or Surveyor to run a company all you need is managerial skills. A smart man can run a company but simply just employing an engineer and a surveyor. You just employ the right people to do the work. ACE and Public Works have gotten many contracts too, so why another man cannot get a chance too. If you were a smaller contractor would you like all the jobs to go the bigger ones all the time. Stupes man. Stupid comments. Give a man a chance too. ACE want all the projects then all the time so every time they are not awarded they will go public. You see the motives I must eat all the time and nobody else must eat.

      • real possie
        September 5, 2014

        Engineer, that’s the reason why a open bidding process is put into place to stop this from happening. They don’t ask why you could take it so low it a level playing field, you see where the problem comes in if you do that all the time then only he would get all the jobs, that’s why I say you people are blinded by politics and not what is really rite for the country, and isn’t Ace doing their self a disservice by taking less just because the have the materials to do the job? they paid for it so when are they going to make that money to replace their investment? am sorry for my country when these people get away with bring the country to with their lies.

    • shaka zulu
      September 4, 2014

      @red what you said here is pure rubbish. You are telling government does not have to answer for there actions. You are part of Dominica’s problem.

  15. Anonymous
    September 4, 2014

    The answer to your question at the beginning of the article is 2, “It was forced to do so against its nature”. Very Interesting article tho.

  16. ?????????
    September 4, 2014

    Hmmmm… very informative piece

  17. Anthony E. Le Blanc
    September 4, 2014

    Correction to Part 1:

    My attention was drawn to the fact that there was a page 2 of the Tender opening record for the first round of Tender in which details of 4 other tenders were recorded (total of 10 tenders were submitted). George Trucking & Excavation Services was recorded as number 9.

    Hence for the first round of tender, the third lowest bid is:
    3. George Trucking & Excavation Services – EC$ 1,586,038.25 – no completion time was given.

    This correction has been posted as a comment o the Part 1

    • Barbara Saunders
      September 5, 2014

      Sir,

      This is one of the hazards of a rush to public accusation, particularly during this silly season and the environment which currently exists in Dominica.

      If I am accusing someone, particularly if I am setting myself up as holding to a higher standard and if my intention is in fact noble and in the interest of Dominica and to convince right thinking people that something wrong was done, I have a responsibility to ensure that my information is impeccably reliable. Don’t you agree?

      I wonder how many people will read the comment correcting an incorrect claim? The spoken/written word , one of the things that come not back. The damage has already been done Sir!

      Before I jump on train of accusation Sir, is there any other incorrect statement in your interesting Article, Part 1 or 2?

      • me
        September 5, 2014

        Like u doe mk mistakes. …b!+ch

  18. Anonymous
    September 4, 2014

    Very interesting article, indeed.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:) :-D :wink: :( 8-O :lol: :-| :cry: 8) :-? :-P :-x :?: :oops: :twisted: :mrgreen: more »

 characters available