EDITOR, The Tribune.

Please permit me to offer a few observations on the recent Public Procurement Bill, which was one of a compendium of bills, introduced (now passed) in parliament to provide, in the words of the Prime Minister, for more transparency in the award of government contracts and make the government more accountable.

Notwithstanding, the apparent good intention of the government, what seems to be a dominant and weak feature in these bills is the entrenched and excessive involvement of the Ministers and Cabinet in the operation of the public procurement bill.

Appointment of members Public Procurement Board.

For instance, Section 15 of the Bill provides for the appointment of a Public Procurement Board.

However, save for the Financial Secretary or his representative as ex officio members, the entire board inclusive of the Chairman is to be appointed by the Prime Minister. There is the requirement for consultation in one instance, and even then the Prime Minister makes the final appointment.

And as for the Financial Secretary, that position itself is filled by the influence or decision of the Prime Minister.

Under this statutory construct which seeks to advance accountability and transparency in government procurement, we end up with a board to be appointed by a Prime Minister who, in my opinion, has demonstrated repeatedly that he himself is not transparent or accountable.

Having the entire board subject to the approval of the Prime Minister effectively reposes in the Prime Minister complete control on who shall engage in the public procurement on behalf of the government.

These individuals serve at his pleasure and can be removed at his pleasure, should he be dissatisfied with any particular recommendation they may advance against his wishes should he be inclined to have one.

Goods and Services to be excluded from the bill.

Under Section 3(2) of the bill, provision is made for a list of goods and services to be excluded from the board’s scrutiny.

One of them is the acquisition or rental of property, existing buildings, or other immovable property or the rights thereon;

In other words, the acquisition of buildings and the rental of property which have been a source of many questionable and corrupt practices will not be caught or governed by this Bill. It could be business as usual when it comes to sourcing the purchase and or rental of premises for government use.

Further, there are other provisions that provides for the exclusion of certain goods and services. This can potentially permit any number of purchases and contracts to escape the procurement board’s scrutiny. These are listed throughout section 3 of the bill.

Financial threshold for proposed contracts.

Save for goods and services having a value under $50,000.00, every other procurement which is captured by the bill, though it may be scrutinised and recommended by the board in some cases, requires the involvement of a minister or the cabinet before it can be awarded to a recommended bidder.

To have a Minster or the Cabinet involved in the final determination on who will be awarded a contract in practically every instance, except where the value of services is below $50,000.00, reduces and exposes the entire process to be filtered through the lens and consideration of politicians. This is much of what we currently have in respect to the awarding of government contracts.

There are other provisions in the bill which is open to abuse and circumvention, such as the ability of the board to engage in what is referred to in the Bill as selective bidding, restricted bidding and limited bidding. These are generally the favored mechanism which is usually employed to circumvent any procurement process.

I trust these devices will not be used and if there is need to, I trust they will be used sparingly.

In closing, I trust that those who are responsible for the final decision in awarding of government contracts will themselves adhere to the principle of transparency and accountability as the Bill seeks to promote. The Bill will only be effective if those who are responsible for its implementation and operation are themselves well intentioned.

CLAUDE B HANNA

Nassau,

March 16, 2021.