Why not procurement by raffling for small items?

Dear Editor, According to the Auditor General’s report seventy-nine contracts valued at $147.536 million were not awarded to the lowest or the most competitive bidder in Region Six, but went to the most expensive bid from those which were submitted.

The procurement procedure for goods and services for state financed entities may look good on paper but on the ground leave much to be desired. Our tender system is flawed in so many ways that it is only logical to conclude that the system is designed for people in power to collude with people in business to defraud the tax-paying public. The result is that the people are not getting value for their money, while more taxes are continually being demanded of them.

I can understand a tender for the building of a school, roads, etc; things that have to be constructed. What I cannot comprehend is tendering for a finished product like a tractor, excavator, medication ‒ things that are available on the market for anyone to buy. Government often pays more than what private companies pay for the same product. In defence we are told that it is so because of “transparency and accountability”.

We saw the PPP/C pay exorbitant prices for medication through sole sourcing to New GPC, Gecom for radio sets and the coalition for rent on a bond to store small medical items, and one billion above the engineer’s estimate for the GPL contract. It’s all the same non-