Written by Pa Nderry M’Bai

Email: [email protected]

Tel: 919-749-6319

AD

The Banjul City Council (BCC), under the leadership of Mayor Rohey Malick Lowe, has suffered a major financial loss, in the sum of millions of dalasis, that have landed into the pockets of corrupt council officials, through over invoicing, kickbacks, massive official corruption, dubious procurement arrangements, the awarding of single source contracts to companies that had strong ties with council officials, such contracts weren’t approved by the contract committee, which is in contravention of the Gambia Public Procurement Act (GPPA), Freedom Newspaper investigations have revealed.

The Gambia Public Procurement Authority (GPPA) has conducted a review exercise at the Banjul City Council (BCC) to determine the Organization’s level of compliance regarding procurement transactions conducted from January 2019 to December 2019, a GPPA report in our possession has revealed.  GPPA’s Senior Compliance Officer Mrs. Jamila Odoom led the review team to the BCC procurement review investigations, while the BCC team was led by CEO Mr. Bachilly.

The main objective of the procurement review was to assess the status of the Banjul City Council (BCC) procurement and disposal systems to determine the level of their implementation processes and compliance with the GPPA (Amendment) Act 2018, GPPR 2003, and the Instructions issued by GPPA, the report stated.

In their findings, the GPPA investigators found that twenty-one (21) single source contracts were awarded from January of 2019 to December of 2019. They also discovered that there was no transparency in the awarding of the contracts.

“An analysis of the procurements under various procurement methods indicates that most of the PO’s procurement (83.7%) is carried out through a non-competitive method of single source none of which has been approved by the contracts committee in contravention of section 49 (C) of the act. A further analysis revealed that the PO is engaged in procurement de-aggregation contrary to section 21 of the act. The table below shows some of the procurements conducted using single source without prior approval from the Authority,” the report stated.

The companies listed below have benefited from the BBC’s bogus procurement contractual arrangements, one of which is Kebba & Sons, a secret company being operated by Mayor Rohey Malick Lowe. She is using her cousin to run the company.

Council has purportedly spent two hundred and sixty-six thousand dalasis (D266,000) on a Quick Books Accounting Software. It was another dubious transaction.

NO Description/item supplier Amount
1 Quick Books Accounting Software D266,000
2 Cost of sewing Uniforms Mansata Danso D40,800
3 Restructuring of the BCC UXL Group D382,500 mamlai
4 Air Ticket to Nairobi Cinderella Travels D276,768
5 Air Ticket (Business Class) Cinderella Travels D190,000
6 Berets Malick Mendy D41,112.50
 7 Tyres Zidan Karan D26,000
8 Hiring of Bulldozer A,M Trading D150,000
9 Service Wire Batimat D41,130
10 Anti-Virus Microtech D75,650
11 Brackets Demba’s Trading D50,000
12 Spare parts Adama Ceesay Spare parts D45,050
13 Air tickets Cinderella D65,465
14 Air Ticket (Business class) Cinderrela D221,000
15 Cost of metal Doors at the Albert Market Demba Cham D117,750
16 HR Payroll System Rubejara D117,500
17 Cleansing materials Kebba & Sons D67,850
18 Stationery (A4 size paper) Kebba & Sons D40,000
19 Cement Fatajo’s Enterprise D42,480
20 Engine oil Ahmed Bardan Enterprise D30,500
21 Fluorescent tubes Mp trading D63,750

 

“The above-mentioned procurements further reveal to the review team that Council had not fully adhered to the thresholds of procurement method as provided for in the Regulations. Furthermore, we observed that there was No justification for the use of single source method for the above procurements. In addition, no prior approvals were sought for above mentioned single source procurements,” the report stated.

MASSIVE CORRUPTION UNCOVERED ON THE CRAB ISLAND PUBLIC TOILETS REHABILITATION

The report also documented the lack of transparency and accountability in the Crab Island toilets rehabilitation project. The project was shrouded by corruption, as the procurement was conducted by people outside the procurement unit.

“In addition to the use of single source above the threshold, Council has conducted procurement has also use RFQ for certain procurements above the threshold without prior approval example the procurement of Rehabilitation of the Crab Island Public toilets. The procurement procedure was not in line with the provisions in the Act and the Regulations,” said the report.

“Furthermore, the procurement was conducted by individuals outside the Procurement Unit. The contract was awarded to Bassen Enterprise at bid price of D662,156.00. As per the minutes of the Contracts Committee on the said procurement, the invoices were collected by a group that visited Oostende with the Lord Mayor,” it added.

The companies listed below have benefited from the BCC corrupt procurement single source scandal: The report highlights:

                          CHAPTER THREE

SPECIFIC FINDINGS

Introduction

This section presents the specific findings on the procurement transactions that were reviewed from the list of total procurements that the GPPA carried out in the financial year January 2019 to December 2019. The specific findings supplement and emphasize on the general findings given in the previous chapter.

Procurement of Staff ID Cards

Category: Goods

Amount: D87,500

Awarded Contractor: Global Alliance USA Gambia LTD

Procurement Method: Single Source

Findings:

NON-COMPLIANCE

  •  The Evaluation Report for the said procurement was not among the documents provided to the reviewers at the time of review as stipulated in section 22(6) of the GPPA Act.
  •  The procurement method is above the Single source this violate Section 44 of GPPA Act.
  •  No GPPA Form was attached in the procurement file.
  •  The quotation was not opened in a register of Form 003 as required under the Act and the Regulations.
  •  No examination and receipt committee appointed to inspect or verify the goods during delivery.
  •  The procurement was conducted by people outside the procurement unit.
  •  There was no delivery receipt as stipulated in Section 35(2) of the GPPA (Amendment) Act 2018.

Management Response

 

 

 

 

 Procurement of Dell Computers

Category: Goods

Amount: D58,000

Awarded Contractor: Marr Banta Suppliers

Procurement Method: RFQ

Findings:

  • NON-COMPLIANCE
  •  There was no evidence to show that the item supplied was inspected at the time of delivery due to the absence of Inspection Committee.
  •  There was no delivery receipt in the file as stipulated in Section 35(2) of the GPPA Act.
  •  No evidence of delivery notes for the said procurement as required under the Regulations. There is no evidence of technical specifications for the said procurement. Furthermore, no solicitation documents/GPPA Form 101 were attached.
  •  There were no minute of the contracts committee meeting as stipulated in regulation 28 of the GPPR and Section 12 (7) (b) and (2) of the GPPA (Amendment) Act 2018.
  •  The procurement was branded (i.e., Dell Computers) in violation of the Act and the Regulation. This act discourages competition as other suppliers of computers of other brands will not compete.
  •  No evidence of the evaluation report for the said procurement.

Procurement of metal windows, truss, gate

Category: Goods

Amount: D111,700

Awarded Contractors: Demba’s Trading

Procurement Method: RFQ

NON- COMPLIANCE

  •  There was no evidence to show that the item supplied was inspected at the time of delivery due to the absence of Inspection Committee.
  •  There was no delivery receipt in the file as stipulated in Section 35(2) of the GPPA Act.
  •  No evidence of delivery notes for the said procurement as required under the Regulations. There is no evidence of technical specifications for the said procurement. Furthermore, no solicitation documents/GPPA Form 101 were attached.
  •  There were no minute of the contracts committee meeting as stipulated in regulation 28 of the GPPR and Section 12 (7) (b) and (2) of the GPPA (Amendment) Act 2018.
  •  No evidence of the evaluation report for the said procurement.

The Cinderella Travels is the company that the corrupt Mayor uses to buy air tickets, the Freedom Newspaper has gathered. She has reached a special deal with the company to scam council.

Procurement of Air Tickets

Category: Goods

Amount: D276,768

Awarded Supplier: Cinderella Travels

Procurement Method: Single Source

Findings:

 NON- COMPLIANCE

  •  The Evaluation Report for the said procurement was not among the documents provided to the reviewers at the time of review as stipulated in section 22(6) of the GPPA Act.
  •  The procurement method is above the Single source this violate Section 44 of GPPA Act.
  •  No GPPA Form was attached in the procurement file.
  •  No prior approval was sought from the Authority for the said procurement.
  •  The quotation was not opened in a register of Form 003 as required under the Act and the Regulations.
  •  No examination and receipt committee appointed to inspect or verify the goods during delivery.
  •  The procurement was conducted by people outside the procurement unit.

 Procurement of Rehabilitation of Crab Public Toilet

Category: Works

Amount: D662,156

Awarded Contractor: Bassen Enterprise

Procurement Method: Request for Quotation

Findings:

 NON-COMPLIANCE

  •  The GPPA Form 101-Request for Quotations was not used in the soliciting of quotations from suppliers.
  •  No evaluation criteria were communicated to the potential suppliers which made it difficult to establish the bases of award.
  •  No Inspection and Acceptance carried out to verify the goods during delivery.
  •  The procurement was above the threshold for Request for quotations and no prior approval was sought from the Authority.
  •  There is no evidence to show that the works were inspected by the inspection committee.
  •  The procurement was done outside the SPU, quotations collected by a group that visited Oostende with the Lord Mayor. The right procurement process was not followed.
  •  The procurement filing was not completed which is a violation of GPPA (Amendment) Act 2018 Section 35(2). The Forms attached are 004, 100 and but Form 012, evaluation report, receipt and minute were not attached.

Procurement of Refurbishment of Market Toilets

Category: simple works

Amount: 179,500

Awarded Contractor: Demba’s Trading

Procurement Method: RFQ

Findings:

 NON-COMPLIANCE

  •  There is no evidence of the Completion Report in the procurement file as there was no inspection committee.
  •  There was no delivery receipt in the file as stipulated in section 35(2) of the GPPA Act.
  •  No evidence of delivery notes for the said procurement as required under the Regulations.
  •  No evidence of the solicitation/GPPA Form 101, no evaluation report and no evaluation criteria.
  •  Procurement was conducted outside the procurement Unit. Hence, no GPPA Form was attach as part of the procurement records.

Procurement of Berets

Category: Goods

Amount: 41,112.50

Awarded Supplier: Malick Mendy

Procurement Method: Single Source

Findings

NON- COMPLIANCE

  •  The Evaluation Report for the said procurement was not among the documents provided to the reviewers at the time of review as stipulated in section 22(6) of the GPPA Act.
  •  The procurement method is above the Single source this violate Section 44 of GPPA Act.
  •  No’  GPPA Form was attached in the procurement file.
  •  The quotation was not opened in a register of Form 003 as required under the Act and the Regulations.
  •  No examination and receipt committee appointed to inspect or verify the goods during delivery.
  •  The procurement was conducted by people outside the procurement unit.

No evidence of the delivery notes in the procurement file.

Non-Compliance

  •  The separation of responsibilities by the PO is weak because of the lack of adequate involvement of the members of the SPU. Our review revealed that procurements were conducted by individuals from all departments during the period under review.
  •  Council has conducted many procurements above the threshold provided in the Regulations without seeking prior approval from the Authority.
  •  The Internal Audit is only involved in the procurement process after the goods are already supplied.

Implication:

  •  Unreported procurements are eminent.
  •  Transparency of the procurement process could be compromised.
  •  Potential conflict of interest as the procurement is done outside the SPU.
  •  Checks and quality assurance could be compromised.
  •  Prolong lead time may be experience.
  •  Violation of the provision of the Act.

 Recommendations

  •  The BCC should ensure that all procurements transactions are carried out by the SPU. The BCC should ensure that the SPU is establish and the procurement staff are train on public procurement and given the powers to conduct procurement.
  •  The internal Audit Unit should be involved in the process in making sure that all relevant documents are attach from the beginning rather than after the process.
  •  The PO should enhance its procurement planning and identify appropriate procurement methods.
  •  The PO should resort to competitive procurement through framework agreements to reduce single source procurement. Further, Council should ensure that single source procurements above the threshold are send to the Authority for prior approval.

In response the corrupt BCC management had this to say:

Management Response

 

•               Noted and Banjul City Council has already taken steps to remedy these valid observations.

•               The Internal Audit Department has taken the task of pre-inspecting the procurement documents thus directly involved in the inspection of all the procurement documentations during the Procurement Processes.

•               With the appointment of an SPU the procurement planning and methodology will be improved as professionals will be appointed with vast experience in procurement.

 

  1. 8. Record keeping of the procurement activities.

 Findings

Specialized Procurement Unit should ensure all procurement activities are filed either in procurement method or monthly transaction as dictated in Gambia Public Procurement Authority (Amendment) Act 2018 Section 35 (2) and Regulation 160.

 Non-compliance

Findings

The PO does not maintain a comprehensive and individual file for each procurement activity in contravention of GPPA section 35 (2). All the procurement files reviewed were found to be incomplete and did not have copies of the contracts committee minutes, the goods received notes, acceptance, and receipt notes, GPPA Forms, evaluation reports, and solicitation document, among others.

Implications

  •  Proper assessment of procurement records is a challenge.
  •  The absence of delivery notes from the suppliers may lead to wrong quantity supplied.
  •  The lack of receipts in certain transactions may imply that the procurement is not complete.

Recommendations

  •  The PO should ensure that files are maintain for each procurement transaction and should contained all information documents and communications relating to such files.
  •  The PO should carry out training and capacity building on procurement records management for the staff of SPU.

Management Response

•               As highlighted earlier, the absence of an SPU causes the challenges faced by the Council in facilitating the required documentations in the procuring processes. The establishment of the SPU will be a means of addressing the situation. An office has been created and equipped with filing cabinets and computers to do the necessary filing and keeping of procurement documents in good and suitable stead.

 

  1. Procurement Planning

Findings

Section 29 of the GPPA (Amendment) Act 2018 dictates that “a procuring Organization shall engage in procurement planning with a view to achieving maximum value for money in public expenditure and other objectives set out in Section 3 and in accordance with the applicable budgetary procedures”.

Non- Compliance

  •  The Banjul City Council did not prepare a Procurement Plan for the period under review in violation of Section 29 of the Act.

Implications

  •  There is the risk of unplanned expenditure.
  •  Funds appropriated for specific items may not be used as budgeted.
  •  The objectives set forth in Section 3 of the Act may be defeated.
  •  Value for money may not be achieved if the procurement is not planned.

Recommendation:

Banjul City Council is obliged to comply with this important provision in Section 29 of the PPA by sending its annual procurement plan to the Authority on or before 15 January every year.

Management Response

•               Noted and Banjul City Council has already taken steps to remedy the observation.

•               The recommendations highlighted by GPPA in submitting Annual Procurement Plan has been acted upon and we have since submitted the Annual Procurement Plan for the year 2020 and 2021, respectively.

 

  1. Prequalification and registration of suppliers

 Findings

 Non-Compliances

  •  The PO does not carry out a prequalification procedure to determine an approved list of registered suppliers as required by sections 23. Instead, the PO relies on the eligibility list of the Gambia public procurement Authority to invite quotations or single source procurements.
  •  The team observed that there is frequent award of contract to Demba’s Trading.

Implications

  •  There could be biasness in the identification of prospective suppliers.
  •  Eligible suppliers may always be excluded in the procurement process which compromises the objective of the Act.

Recommendations

  •  The PO should prequalify suppliers as required by section 23 of the act to assist in arriving at the list of registered or approved suppliers from whom to solicit quotations.

 Management Response

•               The recommendations highlighted are noted and actions will be taken as per the GPPA recommendations and the Acting Procurement Officer always refers to the GPPA website for the Registered Suppliers and Services before contracting any vendor for engagement.

 

  1. Specifications

Findings

Non-Compliance

During review of the procurement proceedings, we observed that some transactions had technical specifications that were in accordance with GPPA Act Section 25 (1) (2) (3) (4). However, technical specification was not generated in most of the Request for Quotation and Single-Source procurements. Furthermore, the team observed that solicitation documents were not prepared for most of the RFQ conducted. There is no evidence of the requirement/specifications send to the potential suppliers to compete.

 Non-Compliance

  •  The Council did not develop specifications in most of their Request for Quotation transaction and Single – Source in accordance with GPPA (Amendment) Act 2018 Section 25 (1)(2) (3) (4).
  •  There is no evidence of the specifications or solicitation documents/GPPA Form 101 sent to the potential suppliers in the procurement of Computers. We further observed that the said procurement was branded (Dell Computers).

 Implication

  •  Value for money may not be attained.
  •  Quality could be compromised due to the absence of specifications.
  •  Award decision is likely to be discretionary instead of responsiveness.

 Recommendation

The Council should ensure specification are generated in each transaction to give fair competition, transparency, and equal opportunity for all prospective suppliers to compete in the procurement process as required in GPPA (Amendment) Act 2018 Section 25 (1)(2) (3) (4).

Management Response 

•               The Council has noted the recommendations highlighted by GPPA and will henceforth adhere by the procurement process required in GPPA (Amendment) Act 2018 Section 25 (1)(2)(3)(4).

 

  1. Supporting the SMEs’ and Preference and reservations

Findings

The PO did not apply preference and reservations as provided in GPPA section 36 (2), GPPR section 24 and there is no specific program in place as a way of supporting SME’s.

 Recommendations

  •  The PO should apply preference and reservations to promote the local industry and provide procurement opportunities to the disadvantaged groups, as provided in the objectives of the act.

Management Response

Recommendations noted and actions will be strengthened to provide procurement opportunities to the local industries. However, Banjul City Council (BCC) must state on record that we have never shy away from supporting local businesses and start-ups but most of them are ill organized lacking in pre-requisite documents and documentations and organized offices and addresses and bank accounts. The BCC is at the forefront in promoting and supporting Gambian businesses especially Banjul youths and start-ups. We will continue in that drives in the months and years to come.

 

  1. Standard Tendering Documents and use of Purchase requisitions.

  Findings

  •  The appropriate standard tender documents and purchase requisition are being used as prescribed in Section 12 (7) (b) (2) of the Act, GPPR 12 (1) (2), 45.
  1. Advertisement of tender opportunities

 Findings

  •  The PO has taken all steps to bring the invitations to tender to the attention of those who may wish to submit tenders, in accordance with GGPR section 51 and within the required periods.
  •  The PO invitations included the closing date and time with an invitation to bidders to attend the bid opening.
  1. Modification to tender documents

Findings     

  •  There were no tender modifications during the period under review.
  1. Submission and Receipt of Bids

Findings

Compliance

  •  Tender opening procedures are carried out in accordance with the regulations.

 Non-compliance

  •  There is no secure facility for the receipt of tenders/quotations from the prospective suppliers as provided for in GPPR 53 (3). Furthermore, the bids submitted under the RFQ were not in seal envelopes.

Implications

  •  There is risk that the tender/quotation may be open or tampered before opening time.
  •  Fraudulent practices are eminent.

Recommendations

  •  For purposes of integrity of the procurement process in line with the objectives of the Act, there is need for the PO to have both the tender and quotation box in secure designations within their premises preferably next to the CEO’ office.
  •  The Authority’s suppliers should be sensitized to start delivering quotations and bids to the tender/quotation boxes and in sealed envelopes.
  •  Staff of the Authority should be discouraged from collecting quotations directly from the suppliers to eliminate the risk of “Dutch auction”.

Management Response

•               The GPPA recommendations are noted and henceforth the council will facilitate a secured facility for the bids tendered and quotations.

 

  1. Formation of Contracts

 Findings

The review team observed that Council had signed certain contracts with suppliers. However, such contracts were not sent to the Authority for approval, example the Contract with Sahel Entertainment Studios for the procurement of Documentary of the achievements made by council was not send to the Authority for approval.

Recommendation

Council should ensure that all contracts with suppliers/Contractors is send to the Authority for approval.

  1. Termination of Proceedings

Findings

  •  There were no terminated proceedings during the period under review.
  1. Reports to GPPA.

Findings

Non-compliance

  •  The BCC has not submitted reports monthly and annually to GPPA on procurement transactions conducted using single source and request for quotation, annual single source procurements, and procurement plan as dictated by Section 29 of the Act and Regulation 116 & 119 using GPPA Forms 006, 200, 201, and 103, respectively.
  •  The PO did not make reports on disposals made to employees as per GPPA section 60, 61, 62, 63, and GPPR section 125.

Implications

  •  Procurement data under reported/unrealistic.
  •  Non reporting of procurement data undermines national planning and budgeting.
  •  Concealment of critical procurement information.

Recommendations

  •  The PO should notify GPPA on all disposals made to employees within fourteen days as required by the act and regulations.
  •  BCC must submit to the Authority reports on all single source and RFQ conducted every month. Furthermore, BCC should prepare and submit its Procurement Plan to the Authority for approval

Management Response

Noted and actions are taken in preparing procurement reports for the subsequent year under review and by extension monthly procurement reports also are sent.

 

  1. Enquiries and Complaints Mechanism

Findings

  •  The PO does not have documented systems and procedures for handling bid complaints and does not maintain a complaints/concerns log/register.

Recommendations

  •  The PO should put in place mechanisms to handle and document bid complaints.

Management Response

•               Henceforth the council will develop and maintain a system in handling bid complaints as per GPPA recommendation.

 

  1. Value for Money

Findings

  •  The PO does not undertake market survey and analysis of suppliers and prices in the market during the year being reviewed to inform the placing of orders as required by regulations. Furthermore, there is no evidence that negotiations were held for any of the Single Sources conducted during the period under review.

 Recommendations

  •  The PO is encouraged to continue to undertake market research and analysis more often preferably on quarterly basis to keep abreast of current trends in prices to inform the placing of orders.
  •  The PO should enter negotiations for single source procurements as required by the regulations.

Management Response

•               Due to the lack of an SPU, the Acting Procurement Officer is incapacitated in handling all the procurement processes alone, with the establishment of an SPU the recommendations of the GPPA will be implemented.

 

  1. Contract Management

Findings

Sections 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35 of the Act and GPPR Part VIII 121 (1) clearly outlines that Procuring organizations shall establish and provide the staffing necessary for the operations involved in contract administration as described in the Instructions.

Non- Compliance

  •  Inspection and acceptance committees are not established as part of the contract management procedure in contravention of Regulation 127 and 128.
  •  Supplier performance reviews are not carried out to inform future improvements of the suppliers on completion of their deliveries as required by the regulations. Form 004 for supplier performance are not filed.

 Implication:

  •  The contracts may not be performed in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the contract.
  •  Relevant information regarding the contract could be missing.
  •  Weak contract administration is an invitation to corrupt practices.
  •  Measurement and control of performance could be hindered thus giving room for more risks and deviation from the original contract.

Recommendations

  •  PO should enhance management and administration of procurement contracts as provided in for in the act and regulations.
  •  It is advisable to file key aspects of the contract performance as part of procurement records management.
  •  PO should establish the Inspection and Acceptance Committee as part of contract management as earlier mentioned.

Management Response

•               Recommendations are noted and henceforth action will be taken.

 

 

The report has also sanctioned the BCC Accounting Officer for his failure to maintian records of procurement proceedings. The Accounting officer has been found wanting. 

Non-Compliant practices

  •  The AO does not ensure that the PO properly documents procurement proceedings and manage records in accordance with the GPPA Act Section 35 (2) as the documentations are incomplete. The GPPA Forms are not attach, absence of recepts in most of the files, and no delivery notes.
  •  The AO did not appoint members of the inspection and acceptance committee or assigned any individual for inspection of goods supplied as required by GPPR section 62, 63, 64, 66, 67.
  •  The Accounting Officer did not ensure that the procuring organization establishes a Specialize Procurement Unit as stipulated in the Act and the Regulations.
  •  The AO has not ensured that the SPU is staff with procurement professionals as required under section 50 and 51 of the Act.
  •  The AO did not ensure that the PO prepares a disposal plan despite conducting a disposal of obsolete items during the period under review.

  Implication

  •  Procurement processes may not be followed in the absence of an SPU.
  •  Persons can easily avoid responsibility when a miss-procurement is detected.
  •  Accountability cannot be assured.
  •  Disobedience to statutory requirements.

  Recommendations

  •  The AO should appoint members of the inspection and acceptance committee as required by the regulations or appoint someone not part of the procurement process to inspect the goods supplied as required by the Act and Regulations.
  •  Council should ensure that an SPU is establish and shall be staff with procurement professionals as required under Section 50 and 51 of the Act.
  •  The PO should document its procurement proceedings properly and manage records in accordance with GPPA Section 35 (1) (4).

  3.1.5 Management Response

•               Noted and action has since been taken by appointing a Procurement Manager by the Local Government Service Commission (LGSC) who turned down the offer in the review year due a low pay scale. Advertisements have been done for the appointment of another Procurement Manager and a Senior Procurement Officer have since been employed after some members of staff having acted on the position for a while.  There is also the appointment of a fully functioning SPU by the commission which is an advance stage of performing.

•               The Accounting Officer is currently working with the Local Government Service Commission (LGSC) for the establishment of an SPU by appointing Procurement Professionals.

•               The Council has taken note for the Preparation of a Disposal Plan which will be a practice that will be undertaken by the Council.

•               The Internal Audit Unit Department is entrusted with the responsibility in the absences of an Inspection and Acceptance Committee for the inspection of goods since Councils are not equipped with people with those competences and in the eyes of overstaffing in Council there is little room to hire people and form an Inspection and Acceptance Committee.

 

  1. Functions of Specialized Procurement Unit

In terms of an organizational structure there is no evidence that the BCC has established a SPU as required by section 50 of GPPA. However, the BCC has appointed an acting procurement officer to conduct procurement transactions for the Council during the period under review. Furthermore, from the reviewed of the files presented, we observed that procurements are conducted by individuals from all departments of the Council.

 Findings

  •  The procurement Officer for the period under review has no qualification on public procurement as required under Section 51 of the Act. However, the procurement officer is currently undergoing training in public procurement.

 Non-Compliances

  •  The Specialized Procurement Unit (SPU) does not maintain proper procurement file of the procurement proceedings in line with section GPPA section 35 (2). Furthermore, the SPU does not complete the GPPA Forms.
  •  The SPU does not use the GPPA Solicitation document (Form 101- Request for Quotation) as a means for soliciting quotation from suppliers.
  •  The procurement processes are not properly followed especially in the procurement of routine items using single source and RFQ procurement methods. Most of GPPA Forms were completed after the items are already supplied.
  •  There is no evidence of solicitation documents/GPPA Form 101 sent to the prospective suppliers. Furthermore, there is no evidence of evaluation criteria for most of procurements conducted during the period under review.
  •  The SPU does not prepare and send monthly reports on single source and RFQ procurements to the Authority as required by the Act for the year under review.
  •  There is no evidence that the SPU carried out periodic market surveys to inform the placing of orders by the contracts committee.
  •  The SPU does not prepare procurement plan for the period under review.
  •  procurements were conducted by different people from various departments

Implications

  •  Transparency of the procurement process could be compromised due to the absence of GPPA Forms, solicitation documents/Form 101.
  •  The absence of procurement plan may increase the risk of unplanned expenditure and value for money may not be achieved.

 Recommendation

  •  The Council should formally establish the SPU and place it appropriately in the organization structure directly under the CEO and be staffed accordingly with trained officials on public procurements. This will ensure that procurement procedures are done in accordance with the Act and the Regulations.
  •  The SPU should prepare the procurement plan as per the GPPA act with planned dates of key procurement activities and perform their functions in line with the regulations.
  •  PO must ensure that monthly reports on single source and RFQ are file and send to the Authority regularly. Furthermore, all the relevant GPPA Forms should be completed accordingly to ensure transparency and Accountability in the procurement processes.
  •  Council should make a stop on Officials outside the SPU from conducting procurements.

Today’s lead story is just a teaser. There are more revelations coming. Stay tuned.

Join The Conversation