With no action taken on the findings of the Public Procurement Commission (PPC), relative to the award of a contract for a feasibility study on a new Demerara River crossing, Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, contends that the Special Organised Crimes Units (SOCU) is *****footing around what is a hot-button issue.

At a prior news conference he said, “It all hushhush because it’s not just Minister Patterson but all the members of cabinet who approved that contract will be liable…I haven’t seen any member of this cabinet being called in to say what made them approve such a study.

“…we have seen the same thing with Volda Lawrence and the [Cheddi Jagan] airport project where we’re paying more and getting less. Yet, they are not being called in or questioned.

“…this is a documented case of corruption of unbelievable proportions, directly involving a Minister of the Government who bypassed our laws and the designated authority, according to our laws, to a Cabinet, to approve an illegality….we believe that this report could result in either the Minister or the entire Cabinet being charged for corruption.”

LAST WORD
Notably, the last work on the issue from Head of the Special Organised Crimes Units (SOCU), Sydney James, was that the Unit’s work had been completed. He added that the file on the matter has been with the Police Legal Advisor for several weeks now.

Additionally, with the Patterson investigation complete, according to SOCU, there has been questions about why no action has been taken in the matter.

FINDINGS OF PPC REPORT SOCU’s
involvement in the matter came after a call from the PPP/C for an investigation. The PPP/C, on August 16, 2018, forwarded to SOCU a report from the Public Procurement Commission (PPC), which was asked to investigate the manner in which the contract was awarded earlier this year. The PPC completed its investigation into the award of the contract for a feasibility study on a new Demerara River and handed its report over on August 7, 2018.

The findings of the report were damning. The report noted that several companies bid for the project – to do the feasibility study and design for the new Demerara River bridge – and 12 companies were shortlisted. The report added that only two of the 12 companies made proposals. As such the bidding process was annulled.

It added that on November 12, 2016, the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) approved the move for the project to be re-tendered. The project was not re-tendered. Instead, a Dutch Company, LivenseCSO, was engaged by Patterson’s Ministry. The report, on page 7, noted that the bid from LivenseCSO was “unsolicited” and added that Patterson then took the company’s proposal to Cabinet for approval. Cabinet granted its approval for the company to be engaged.

The report, on page 7, stated that monies to be spent on the project were taken from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation (Asphalt Plant Accounts). The report said, “The PPC noted that the Minster of Public Infrastructure, by memorandum dated November 18 2016, made a request to the Cabinet for Government seeking consideration and approval to use funds from the Demerara Harbor Bridge Corporation to fund the feasibility study and to commence a contractual engagement with LievenseCSO as of the 1 Jan 2017.

The PPC noted that this request to Cabinet was not forwarded through the NPTA but submitted directly by the Minister of Public Infrastructure. The PPC also noted that Cabinet considered the memorandum submitted by the Minister of Public Infrastructure and in November 2016 approved a total sum of $161, 514, 420 to be used from the Demerara Harbor Bridge Corporation to cover cost for the feasibility study for a new bridge across the Demerara river.”

Notably, the General Manager of the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation, according to the PPC report, disclosed that the Board of the Corporation was not involved in the decision to spend its monies. The report said, “He (Mr. Adams) stated that he had not signed the contract on behalf of the DHBC, but only because he was requested to do so by the Minister of Public Infrastructure.”

The Parliamentary Opposition’s position is that the findings of the report evidence a flagrant breach of Guyana’s financial rules.