By Mama A. Touray
The fund that KMC said it budgeted for the construction of three markets in the municipality was different from the figures that the council provided in its evaluation report, GPPA’s director of procurement policy and operations disclosed at the LG commission on Tuesday.
According to Ebrima Sanyang, KMC claimed to have budgetedD93, 776,765.03 for the construction of Bakoteh fish market, Abuko Sandiga, and Latrikunda Sabiji markets.
But Sanyang said this figure was at variance with what was provided in the evaluation report, adding that KMC’s director of finance stated in one of its contracts committee meetings that the information provided by the bidders was not sufficient and said it was prudent for the company to furnish them with more information.
“You cannot ask for information that should have been provided prior. All these should have been in the bid documents,” Sanyang argued.
Sanyang testified that the contracts committee of KMC observed that the amount provided by the bidder was not certain and wassubject to change but was quick to add that the practice was wrong.
“The financial proposal was not responsive because it was not certain. It must be certain for it to be regarded as responsive,” Sanyang said.
He testified that former KMC CEO Sainabou Martin-Sonko,during the meeting, requested to allow the bidder more time to conduct a survey and research to allow him present another bid.
“In a normal circumstance, it should have been cancelled. Both the financial and technical proposals were not responsive. What the CEO suggested was not in line with the provisions of the law,” Sanyang said.
He told the commission that the contracts committee met again on 4 June 2020, and ex-CEO Sainabou Martin-Sonko reminded members that only one bidder made a submission. In that meeting, he went on, the committee corrected the figure as opposed to the “wrong amount” it furnished GPPA in the previous letter.
“From what we have seen, the bidder did not have the funds and would require funding,” Sanyang said.”Proof of the funding should be provided as part of the bidding,” he added.
The GPPA’s procurement policy and operations director said thecommittee observed in a meeting that it was going to be difficultfor the bidder to secure funding from the banks, considering thelimitations of the Central Bank of The Gambia as regards lending by commercial banks.
According to Sanyang, the most ideal thing for KMC to do under the circumstance was to relaunch the whole bidding process but said KMC sent a letter to GPPA on 24 June 2020, indicating that the council have awarded the market infrastructure project to the bidder – Finish Profiles.
He added that GPPA approved the procurement worth D179,035,967.
At this juncture, Lead Council Yakarr Coxx interjected to ask Sanyang why the GPPA approved the procurement without certain documents
“It may not be justifiable to approve it,” Sanyang responded.
“What will be the reason for your office approving this procurement,” Lawyer Coxx asked. Sanyang responded that he felt that the contractors should have been disqualified at the stage they provided insufficient bid security.
“Where your authority went ahead and granted approval whereas there are so many lapses, do you think your authority (GPPA) should be jointly liable for that,” Lawyer Coxx asked.
In his response, Sanyang said he did not think GPPA can be jointly held liable, considering the provisions of the law under sections 47 and 49 of the GPPA Act, which states that the councils are responsible for the conduct of their procurements.
“The accounting officer (CEO) and the procuring organization(area council) were responsible,” Sanyang added.
“If you did not provide approval, do you think the contract would have gone ahead,” Counsel Coxx further asked, stressingthat the approval was a green light to carry on with the procurement.
However, Sanyang said without approval, the contract would not have been awarded and maintained that GPPA cannot be held liable for the “wrongs” of the council.
“You want to enforce but you did not want it to be enforced against you,” Lawyer Cox contended.
“Not that,” Sanyang said. “The staff of the councils should be held liable,” he added.
Sanyang was on the defense saying GPPA cannot be jointly held liable for the violations. He said it was the responsibility and the making of the council.
