Put this GDF project on hold

I wish to respond to the article in the Kaieteur News published on November 18, 2021, titled ‘We did not bid for the $44M hospital project – GDF states’. This was in response to my letter that it is unfair for the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) to participate in public procurement processes. The KN article stated, ‘the Defence Force said that it does not participate in public bidding processes. In fact, the GDF said that it is President Irfaan Ali who wants the Force to play a role in national development. “President and Commander-in-Chief, Dr.

Irfaan Ali, shortly after taking office, articulated his vision for the Guyana Defence Force. As part of that vision, was his desire to see the Force play a greater role in national development.” The article further stated, “It is in this regard, that the Force has partnered with Regional Democratic Councils to execute a number of community projects in several administrative regions…” I support President Ali’s vision for the Guyana Defence Force to play a greater role in national development. I also support the GDF partnering with the Regional Democratic Councils (RDCs) to provide support on development programmes and projects. However, the Guyana Defence Force can only participate once these

conform to national and international procurement and financial laws and regulations.

The President’s vision must be rolled out within the parameters set out by the law. There are two important points to note here; one is that the GDF has highly skilled, well trained and disciplined engineers, and members as a whole, who can contribute much to development, and this is a good

conform to national and international procurement and financial laws and regulations.

The President’s vision must be rolled out within the parameters set out by the law. There are two important points to note here; one is that the GDF has highly skilled, well trained and disciplined engineers, and members as a whole, who can contribute much to development, and this is a good thing for the country and the organization; however, it is not a construction or private sector company, it is a military organization and a state agency, therefore it must be treated as such. The second point is, the means by which the G$44.4 M was awarded to the GDF. The British High Commission should not have awarded a G$44.4M contract to the Guyana Defence Force as was done in this case. My suggestion is that this project be put on hold until the proper procurement procedures are complied with. One way of correcting this is for the British High Commission to grant the G$44.4 M to the Ministry of Public Works or the Ministry of Health, after which the GDF engineers could be seconded to that ministry to execute the project. In this way, accountability lies with the grantee ministry, which is the more appropriate organization for this transaction. However, even if the project is done through a grant to one of the ministries above, another issue may be, whether a project for such a large sum should not have been done through a public tender, and processed by the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) as stipulated by law. This again, raises the question of unfair competition.

It is commendable that the United Kingdom Department for International Development is facilitating the Smart Healthcare Facilities in the Caribbean project, which has a budget of over $835 million (US$4.175 million), and that Guyana’s health facilities such as the Diamond Diagnostic Hospital, the Leonora Diagnostic and Treatment Centre, Mabaruma Regional Hospital and the Paramakatoi Health Centre, will benefit. However, the proper procurement process must be complied with in order to ensure transparency and accountability. What I find disappointing, is that the British High Commission or DFID did not advise the government that it is not allowed to conduct its business in this manner. If one studies the causes of the conflict in Haiti, one of the main problem is internal challenges, e.g., former law enforcement and military officers play a significant role as a part of Haiti’s illicit power structures. Hence, we should become very concerned when G$44M dollars is ‘thrown’ at the GDF without robust transparency and accountability indicators being adhered to. Another question, why would DFID give G$44.4M dollars to the Guyana Defence Force, an agency with no direct oversight for health or construction of state facilities? The Guyana Defence Force is a national security agency.

I have worked with three Chief Executives at

GuySuCo and one of the roles I played was to insist that they, and the management, stick to the rules despite difficult reorganization processes and political influences, etc. I remember once saying to a Chief Executive, ‘… even if a Minister, Chairman of the Board of Directors for another agency should ask you to do something contrary to the laws, policies, regulations of the company, you don’t have to do it and we [management] will not let you do it because you hold a duty to the organisation as the Chief Executive and Director which a Minister or Chairman of the Board of another agency does not have’. In this instance the Chief-of-Staff holds a duty to the Guyana Defence Force that the President does not have, and therefore he has to hold that line. I understand that officers in government and state agencies may not always have bosses like Errol Hanoman, Paul Bhim, Dr. Harold Davis, or an Earl John, and can eventually be fired for taking a stand, as I was. The Chief-of-Staff can possibly face consequences for taking a principled stand on a matter with the President, but if it means that the integrity of the Guyana Defence Force, as an organization will be preserved, then so be it. GuySuCo survived, largely because of the principled position the management took, during our tenure. I therefore maintain that the G$44.4M contract awarded to the GDF must be made null and void.

Sincerely,

Citizen Audreyanna Thomas