Tendering, including for gas, must be open and transparent
DEAR EDITOR,
In theory, government contracts are awarded based on an open, transparent tendering process – arguably the most effective tender that gets the job. Is it really so? Is the whole tender process false? For the four studies for onshore gas, is there any tendering? Or does the government choose any four entities to do only the onshore gas studies? Is it ethical for Ministers to direct contracts in favor of bidders? Should the government engage in no bidding contracting?
There were allegations of handling of tenders during the last PPP administrations that ended in 2011 and 2015 with loss of political support. Despite economic progress, the PPP was sacked. Did the PPP learn anything from those allegations and the election results? We are six months into the new administration. Is repetition in the making?
It is becoming common practice for Ministers to disregard their departmental tender boards within their respective Ministries and award contracts in accordance with Ministerial directives. That was under the previous regime except for a few Ministers who had no allegations of tort or contract interference. But this government promised to do business differently from its predecessor. Instead, there are more aggressive practices that cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
Are all contracts advertised or tendered? What about the much talked about gas project in Wales? Do some contracts only find preferred bidders? It was recently revealed in a paper report that two companies had been awarded 85 per cent of the contracts to supply drugs to the Ministry of Health. Is that fair? There is a lot of hype over the recently made Eccles to Diamond road. Why wasn’t it tendered? Which company made the way? Who owns the company? Is there a raging relationship between the contractor and someone in government? Is the contractor front to anyone in government?
It is now necessary for the Auditor General (AG) to pay close attention to each tender in order to prevent the process from being handled. Copies of tenders should be submitted to the AG Chamber. And tenders should be opened in the presence of PE staff and made public before the evaluation is done so that costs are not changed in favor of a contractor or added something to reward the contract. This open tendering process would limit the emerging form of ministerial abuse where ministers direct which company gets a contract.
Are contractors called in to pay a fee and / or notified of a deal to get the contract? Is the contract price being renegotiated to include the deal?
In terms of bargains, do the members of a Minister’s family provide a service through a newly established company that speeds up construction approval and facilitates contracts? There are suggestions that this is the case and that this is an Administration with one of the largest budgets. Is it okay for family members of Ministers to engage in this type of business activity and is it fair to squeeze contractors for a fee in order to land a contract?
Editor, putting in a tender process costing more than $ 200K – purchasing the tender package and going through the costs of preparing the documents such as hiring engineers to do the required paperwork, packaging the materials, and time spent – just to find it out the whole process is fake. A small contractor considers the process unreasonable and burdensome, and feels pain when a contract has been manipulated to favor a specific contractor who pays to play.
Although a few former Ministers did not interfere with the tendering process, and were praised for their honesty, the opposite now seems to be found in several Ministries where an honest contractor almost finds it impossible to get work. Ministers should not have the power to decide who gets a tender. The process should be open and perhaps transparent including the Auditor General to witness the tender process and audit of the work.
Truly,
Nigel P. Blake