OP, DIS flout procurement Act in water tenders

The duo disregards the Public Procurement Act Qualifying citizen companies, citizen joint ventures sidelined Lack of check and balances exposes Accounting Officers to intimidation

The Office of the President and the Directorate of Intelligence and Security ( DIS) are said to have influenced a decision to have a multimillion Pula NorthSouth Water Carrier ( NSC 2.2) pipeline awarded to Chinese companies.

The OP and the DIS are said to have shortlisted four companies Unik Construction, Okavango JV, China Jiansu, and China Civil Engineering.

Sources have revealed that this was against the dictates of the newly enacted Public Procurement Act which empowers Accounting Officers ( Permanent Secretaries at the ministry level) and Buyers to decide on the award of the tenders with the recommendation of the Ministerial Tender Committees ( MTC). The overruling of the Accounting Officer by the duo is said to have been one of the reasons that led to the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Lands and Water Affairs, Bonolo Khumotaka tendering her resignation last week. The permanent secretary is said to have expressed concern about the interference of OP and the DIS in the procurement process of the projects, an act for which she was threatened with demotion.

Since the enactment of the new law, it is alleged that there have been loopholes allowing for corruption to take place in the procurement space.

This is said to be due to the absence of the pre- commencement processes which involved vetting of tenders by District Administration Tender Committees, Ministerial Tender Committees, and PPADB who would also receive the bids.

In the past, the purchasing departments would conduct the evaluation and submit it to the committees for an award.

OP and Water Utilities Corporation ( WUC) had not responded to questionnaires sent to them on Wednesday last week. DIS has refuted that it played any part in influencing the shortlisting of contractors for the awarding of the tender.

“As you may already be aware, the Directorate does not get involved in tendering issues. The authority responsible for regulating government tenders and related processes is the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Board ( PPADB).

“You would further be aware that the role of the Directorate as established by the Intelligence and Security Services Act ( 2008) is to gather intelligence, analyse it, and advise government ministries, departments and bodies as and when issues constituting threats to the country’s interests, security and sovereignty are identified.

“The role of the directorate is therefore limited to advising on issues that may have implications on national security as and when identified through the relevant processes,” DIS Public Relations Director Edward Robert, said in response to a questionnaire.

On whether the DIS was involved in the vetting of companies that tendered for this water project, Robert stated that the Directorate is not able to address the specific issues raised herewith “as doing so may result in the disclosure of classified information, and would be adverse to the Intelligence and Security Services Act”.

However, he said it should be noted that the Directorate is the only authority mandated by law to conduct security vetting for government ministries, departments, and their agencies, adding that it, therefore, follows that all government entities do from time to time utilise this service.

“The Directorate is not able to address the specific issues raised herewith as doing so may result in the disclosure of classified information, and would be adverse to the Intelligence and Security Services Act.

“However, it should be noted that in scenarios such as the one being suggested in this query, the role of the Directorate to advise government entities falls within the confines of the Intelligence and Security Services Act ( 2008) and no further”, said Robert, when asked if the DIS called for the tenders to be given to the said companies against the qualified citizen and citizen joint ventures that qualified.

He distanced the Directorate from any influence that could have led to Khumotaka resigning from the public service. According to Robert, this cannot be true considering the fact that the Directorate does not have a role to play in procurement processes.

The role of the Directorate, he said, is confined to the requirements of the Intelligence and Security Services Act, and only the Directorate has the authority to dispense services to contain threats to national security and the country’s interests.