SOME SEARCHING QUESTIONS DEAR EDITOR, Reference is made to articles appearing in Kaieteur News on the 8th day of July 2018, under the caption “NYbased company sole sourced in $366M drug contract major local suppliers disqualified” and in Stabroek News on the 9th day of July 2018, under the caption “Questions raised about Ministry’s sole-sourcing of $367m in drugs from HDM Labs”. Immediately following the publication of these articles, I was able to acquire several documents, which included a copy of the Tender Evaluation Report MMU-08-2017 and MMU-09-2017, as well as letters to the Chairman of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) dated 19th day of June 2017, and letters to HDM Labs Inc. dated the 20th day of June 2017. Editor, I wish to use this opportunity to ask the Minister of Public Health to answer to the nation the following questions: 1. Why were items omitted from the “big pharmaceuticals tender” and then subsequently sole-sourced from HDM Labs Inc.? 2. An examination of the items that were omitted from the “big pharmaceuticals tender” that was subsequently sole-sourced from HDM Labs Inc., strongly suggests a fixing of this arrangement. I am sure that the Minister would accept this opportunity, as part of her new found anti-corruption campaign, to explain how this omission occurred. Who was responsible for this grave violation? And if sole-sourcing to HDM Labs Inc. was the best possible option available to remedying this unusual occurrence. Could the Minister further
PAGE 5
Kaieteur News
Wednesday July 11, 2018
state whether we received value for money by way of this purchase? 3. The Permanent Secretary (PS) of the Ministry of Public Health wrote to the Chairman of the NPTAB requesting the sole-sourcing of $366,926,660.80 GYD on the 19th day of June 2017, to facilitate this transaction and in her letter, she stated the following: “HDM Labs Inc. has great capacity in delivering Supplies to the Ministry of Public Health within two weeks time frame.” “HDM Labs Inc is a recognized and efficient supplier country wide.” Could the Minister, in the interest of transparency, inform the nation who is the owner(s) or principal(s) of HDM Labs Inc., when they were registered for business in Guyana and on what occasion(s) did HDM Labs Inc. delivered pharmaceuticals to the Ministry of Public Health within a two- week time frame, as stated by the PS of the Ministry in her letter? This would constitute emergency purchases. 4. Please provide information that will bring comfort to the public that HDM Labs Inc. is a recognized and efficient supplier nationwide. Specifically, we would like to be informed about which companies/institutions, apart from the Ministry of Public Health, HDM Labs Inc. supplied pharmaceuticals to and the quantities, within the last two years? Further, please state why companies that manufacture and distributes these
pharmaceuticals, locally, were not offered an opportunity to provide these services? 5. Further, after applying to the Chairman of NPTAB to sole-source pharmaceuticals, a day later the PS wrote to HDM Labs Inc. awarding the company the contract. Could the Minister provide the nation with the approval letter from NPTAB that allowed for this transaction and state under which category of Section 28 of the Procurement Act of 2003, was the request granted? Editor, every aspect of this transaction is suspicious and points to acts of insider trading, contract fixing, procurement fraud and squandering of public funds and the Government’s newly discovered fetish, misconduct in public office. I am sure that the Minister having publicly disclosed that there is fraud in the public sector and their blatant attempts to steal and other brazen dishonest acts perpetuated by employees, with a threat to involve the Police and state auditors, would welcome this opportunity to explain to the nation, publicly, the issues surrounding this transaction and to answer my questions, which are adumbrated above. Yours truly, Bishop Juan A. Edghill PPP/C Member of Parliament
The PPP is shooting itself in the foot DEAR EDITOR, In a previous letter I alluded to the PPP’s Bharrat Jagdeo/Presidential candidate dilemma. With that still to be resolved, the Party’s challenges seem to be mounting unnecessarily following the performance of some of its Members of Parliament (MPs) during a recent meeting with the Parliamentary Sectorial Committee on Natural Resources and ExxonMobil. From what was reported, it appears that some on the PPP side were ill prepared to professionally and thoroughly engage the oil giant on burning issues within the public domain. This is evident from the type of questions reportedly asked with a focus more on perceived political involvement of the company. While it is imperative to seek clarity on that, the overall outcome of that engagement remains a mystery, no fault of Exxon.The woefully inept performance of MPs Neend Kumar and Pauline Sukhai, creates a very frightening picture for effective representation in the future if the PPP were to regain power. Both lack the depth of knowledge to effectively engage a company such as Exxon. Ignorance must not be used as an excuse given that an MP worth his/ her salt is expected to conduct proper research to embellish knowledge to allow for the asking of meaningful
questions.The blame for that unacceptable performance by those two elected officials must also be shared by the Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira. She, having been forewarned by General Secretary Jagdeo who publicly stated that related capacity was short, should have ensured that her MPs for that committee were fully prepared through engagement in a simulation exercise. If preparations were done, then it either means that it completely missed the mark or the two MPs lack the capacity to assimilate what was imparted. While I cannot confirm one way or the other, the performance reeks of a lack of preparation and knowledge in that field. Sending them in the first place knowing the ineptitude referred to by Jagdeo and doing apparently nothing to effect a better outcome, is a form of disrespect to the electorate especially PPP supporters.What is the PPP going to do to increase its obvious and accepted lack of knowledge to deal with this formidable oil sector in the future? First and foremost must be the debarring of Need kumar and Sukhai until they can prove their competency. If the Chief Whip did not envisage the need for preparation, then her competency comes into question from an administrative standpoint. Knowing her extensive knowledge on Parliamentary
affairs, it becomes immensely disappointing if she didn’t insist on preparation. If something as basic as that could not have been implemented, then to say that the PPP is shooting itself in the foot would be an understatement. The challenge for the PPP, which remains the hope of an increasing number of Guyanese, is to understand that the world is rapidly evolving and moving away from traditional means and must therefore adapt. They must know the strengths and weaknesses of its MPs and be more prudent in assigning them to the important sectorial committees.Haunting questions are; would it quickly come to this realization and would it be bold to reassign the Neend Kumars and the Sukhais? There is word of an alleged untouchable few in Freedom House in which both sit comfortably. Doing the right thing for Guyana by ensuring the best representation in parliament may be more daunting for the PPP than it appears. What comes first? A dilemma within another? Rajendra Doodnauth New Jersery USA