In a blistering indictment of the recent decision by the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) to uphold the award of an $865 million contract to Tepui Group despite several discrepancies, Alliance For Change (AFC) Member of Parliament, Khemraj Ramjattan, has denounced the majority recommendation as “shamelessly objectionable” and “unfair.”
Ramjattan, who speaking on behalf of the AFC, during its press conference on Friday echoed the collective concern of his party over what he perceives as a grave blow to the integrity of Guyana’s democracy.
The award, granted to Tepui Group, which is operated by Mikhail Rodrigues, also known as ‘Guyanese Critic’, came under intense scrutiny due to allegations of irregularities in the evaluation process and suspicions of favoritism. Concerns were raised regarding the transparency of the evaluation committee’s decisions and potential conflicts of interest.
Moreover, serious evaluation disqualifications were alleged, with the bidding process coming under fire for lacking transparency and fairness.
Ramjattan’s critique delved into the discrepancies laid bare within the PPC’s summary of findings. He also illuminated the stark contrast between the majority and minority recommendations, shedding light on the unanimous consensus among all five commissioners regarding the disqualifications of Tepui’s bid.
The AFC stalwart further lambasted the PPC’s perceived leniency in refraining from proposing remedial action, citing a misapplication of privity of contract. He argued that such leniency should only emanate from parties with vested interests, emphasizing the imperative for constitutional bodies to serve as vigilant watchdogs against executive overreach and procurement irregularities.
“The AFC finds the legal device of privity of contract (by the three Commissioners) to allow the award, which ought to have been vitiated ab initio, as an abomination and an abdication of their duty to protect against fraud and corruption in procurement matters,” Ramjattan asserted. He added, “They abandon their power under article 212 AA (1)(h) and (i) which provides explicitly that they investigate complaints, and in cases of irregularity and mismanagement and “to propose remedial action.”
On Thursday during his press conference, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo staunchly defended the government’s decision to award the contract to the Tepui Group. Jagdeo emphasized the urgent need for new contractors to support Guyana’s burgeoning infrastructure development agenda and underscored the necessity for stringent supervision to ensure quality outcomes, notwithstanding potential inexperience among new contractors.
“You have to have new contractors. We are building nineteen pump stations and you have very few people with the capacity to build all nineteen… so often you have to bring new contractors who may not have the full experience, but you have to see if they have the comparable skills and have rigid supervision of the contracts,” the Vice President noted.
Furthermore, contrary to Ramjattan’s stance—financial analyst Joel Bhagwandin who also serves as a commissioner of the PPC, in a published letter to the editor, asserted that the body lacks the statutory authority to rescind contracts. Bhagwandin clarified that while inconsistencies were identified in the evaluation process, no explicit breach of the Procurement Act was established. He underscored the PPC’s mandate to provide recommendations for remedial action, rather than judicial enforcement.
“Although the summary of findings showed a number of inconsistencies in the evaluation process, there was no established breach, per se, of the Procurement Act. This is an important point to note that escaped the media. The PPC does not have the legal authority to rescind or revoke any contract,” he affirmed.
“In the circumstances, the PPC is restricted to providing recommendations for remedial action (s), which it did. It should be noted, too, that the PPC is not a Court of Law, therefore it does not have the powers of a Court of law,” Bhagwandin also noted.
