Latest update March 29th, 2024 12:59 AM
Mar 11, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
In all the controversies that have raged over contracts within the government, a recurring question has been, “Where is the Office of the Auditor General?”
What, however, is really to be asked, is if the Auditor General’s Office having read in the newspapers about some concern over matters relating to public expenditure, does not have an obligation to launch an investigation, so that it can be ascertained whether there has been any malfeasance or irregularity in the award of those contracts and more importantly, whether the job has been done to required specifications.
Judging from the contents of the Annual Reports of the Office of the Auditor General, there should be little doubt that the audit office does have the authority to examine whether the financial regulations have been breached or malfeasance has taken place. The reports also suggest that the audit office can conduct value for money audits.
In fact, the said Office of the Auditor General has conducted such audits in relation to old age pensions and the financial management of the Palms – an institution for the aged and destitute.
It was reported only last week that the Ministry of Finance had invited the Auditor General to carry out an investigation into allegations that there was fraud involving the payment of superannuation benefits to workers.
The Office of the Auditor General should not be part of any investigation conducted by the government or the police. The Office of the Auditor General is an independent, constitutional body, and therefore it cannot be summoned at the beck and call of the government.
The Office of the Auditor General should be carrying out its own investigations into these matters and more so those which are being exposed within the pages of this newspaper.
A few weeks ago, there was the issue of the tender for drugs and medical supplies. A controversy has erupted over the claim that the tender for drugs and medical supplies for 2011-2012 were not advertised.
A government official later attempted to explain that there was an advertisement for pre-qualification, and that subsequently, two local companies were pre-qualified and these companies submitted bids.
However, the advertisement inviting firms to pre-qualify is not the same as a tender for bids. One has to follow the other. And one cannot be done at the exclusion of the other.
First, companies have to be invited to pre-qualify. This was reportedly done through an advertisement on a government website. The Procurement Act is very specific that the procuring entity shall make a decision with respect to the qualifications (not tenders) for each supplier or contractor, based only on the criteria set forth in the prequalification documents.
It was later revealed by a government official that there is a policy of the government to allow local pharmaceutical manufacturers the opportunity to tender for goods alongside international suppliers. Now this amounts to an automatic system of pre-qualification and cannot be considered as fair.
A policy of allowing local companies to tender can only be done if those companies are first invited and assessed to have been pre-qualified. But since the law allows all companies to apply for prequalification, there is no need for any policy decision with respect to local companies.
The Auditor General’s Office may therefore wish to examine how consistent is this policy with the provisions of the Procurement Act, which allows all companies to apply for pre-qualification. Is it now being said that local manufacturing companies can be pre-qualified simply because they are local companies? Are the local manufacturing companies being given a free ride to pre-qualification?
The provision of the Procurement Act states qualification for procurement must be based only on the criteria set out in the invitation for pre-qualification.
Notwithstanding all of this, prequalification simply is a process of determining those eligible to bid. The bids for the delivery of supplies and drugs still have to be invited and therefore the question remains whether all pre-qualified entities for supplying medical supplies and drugs for the period 2011-2012 were invited to tender.
The answer to this question would help bring closure to this matter and assure all that everything was above board with the way in which this matter was handled.
Is the Auditor General’s Office going to investigate this matter, just as it will most likely examine the alleged fraud involving superannuation benefits?
THIS IDIOT TELLING GUYANA WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE 50% PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH EXXON.
Mar 29, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – After a series of outstanding performances in 2023, Tianna Springer, dubbed the ‘wonder girl’, is eagerly gearing up to compete in this year’s...Kaieteur News – Good Friday in Guyana is not what it used to be. The day has lost much of its solemnity. The one day... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – In the face of escalating global environmental challenges, water scarcity and... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]