CMU admits procurement breach for $700-million construction project
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT it had breached the procurement process when it embarked on a $701-million project to construct a new student block on its main campus in Kingston, the Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) says it is moving swiftly to follow the correct procedures so that the materials purchased can be utilised.
The university, which has been bedevilled by corruption allegations, says it now intends to pursue competitive bidding for a reputable company to be selected to carry out the construction.
Responding to a mountain of questionable transactions set out in the Special Audit Report of the CMU by Auditor General Pamela Monroe Ellis, the Ministry of Education says the tertiary institution will re-establish a procurement unit and procurement committee. It says the committee would be fully staffed based on the Government of Jamaica guidelines. Further, it says the procurement committee is to be re-established with clear terms of reference and will include external persons from the finance ministry as well as its parent ministry.
The response, which came through the education ministry, is set out in a document submitted on Tuesday to Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee.
The university has also pledged to discontinue direct construction activities. Additionally, the CMU’s current Projects Unit will now focus on maintenance and Special University Projects similar to the Project Unit at The University of the West Indies.
It is proposed that the building, when completed, will provide five lecture theatres, 20 mini-halls/classrooms and 40 tutorial rooms.
Acting permanent secretary in the Ministry of Education, Youth and Information, Dr Grace McLean, said the project document for the construction of a new block at the university indicated that the project started in February 2018. However, she said it actually commenced a month later.
The auditor general said she was not provided with any evidence that the then Hyacinth Bennett-led CMU Council, which provided oversight of the institution, considered the feasibility of the project. “Further, based on the cost of the project, we expected that the proposal would have been submitted to Cabinet for approval; however, we saw no evidence of such submission,” the auditor general said.
The education ministry said that the project proposal was developed and presented to the executive management and subsequently presented to the projects subcommittee of the board. However, the ministry said that there was no evidence that the project was presented by the projects subcommittee to the council.
McLean noted that the CMU has accepted that it “erred in not submitting the documents to Cabinet for the initial approval to proceed with the project. It must be noted, however, that an initial submission of the concept was made to PIMSEC (Public Investment Management Secretariat) and approval granted for the preparation of the detailed information”.
SOLICITING BIDS
Monroe Ellis had reported that before the permanent secretary’s approval to utilise direct contracting under emergency (DC-E) methodology, CMU had solicited bids for price quotations for materials to construct a threestorey light structure building. Bidders were instructed to submit their bids electronically to the Director of Projects and Strategic Initiative, the Administrative Assistant Special Projects Unit and the senior manager for Special and Technical Projects, with a submission deadline of March 6, 2018.
The ministry stated that in an effort to move the process forward, the team solicited pro
forma invoices. “They acknowledged that this is a breach as they should have waited until the written approval was in hand before soliciting quotations. In addition, an error was made through a different interpretation of direct contracting and more than one quotation was solicited.”
Responding to concerns raised by the auditor general about the bidding process, the ministry said despite granting permission to CMU for direct contracting, the university “in an effort to establish value for money through comparative estimates sought to obtain quotations from other bidders.
“During the process of research it was discovered through the provision of an unsolicited proposal from logistic company-1 that this company could coordinate the provision of the panels. The decision therefore was taken for logistics company-1 to submit its bid and to obtain bids from other interested suppliers. CMU facilitated the process by providing the bid documents to the other suppliers, which were submitted through logistic company-1 to CMU on March 13.”
The ministry claimed that the CMU, “having analysed the process that was used”, acknowledged and accepted that they misinterpreted the procurement guidelines and did not act in accordance with what was required.