Govt, UNDP row over Licensing contract

The company that won the award in a 5-2 vote taken by the Tendering Committee is yet to be told the position. There have been reports of great differences between the Ministry of Works and Transport and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) because the UNDP is pressing for the losing company to get the award. All attempts by Sunday Newsday to contact Dr Ynyang Ebong-Harstrup, UNDP’s Resident Representative in Port-of-Spain, for clarification of this matter have failed.

The UNDP’s Evaluation Committee set the deadline for tenders at December 1, 2004. According to reliable Information Technology (IT) sources, 19 local and international companies expended approximately US$25,000 each to put up their bids. These bids were evaluated by the UNDP committee which comprise seven representatives appointed by the UNDP in Port-of-Spain and the Ministry of Works and Transport. The Committee was chaired by a man named Donald Burke, a Canadian who, it is reported had no known expertise in the area, but who from the outset seemed to favour a particular foreign company.

After much deliberation, two companies A and B were shortlisted by the Evaluation Committee. Sunday Newsday was told that "Company A" was a virtually unknown foreign entity said to be based in Iceland. "Company B" was a joint venture between an internationally recognised outfit with worldwide experience in the field and the Trinidad company with university graduates. One of the aspects of the technical assistance between TT and the UNDP is the transfer of technology in this field.

For some unknown reason, however, it is alleged that the UNDP’s representative, Dr Harstrup, wished to proceed to the contract negotiations stage with "Company A" in breach of established procurement procedure. This was opposed by the Ministry of Works in a March 2005 letter to Dr Harstrup which listed several concerns about the unsuitability of "Company A."

The Ministry insisted that responses to its concerns had not been satisfied, even after a meeting and study of written documentation provided by "Company A," whose price was substantially lower than that of "Company B." That fact in itself was cause for concern as to how the project could be successfully delivered at what was termed the "ridiculously low" price of US$1M when the project was estimated to cost US$4M by an independent Ernst and Young report of 1998. The Ernst and Young lowest pricing for the project was US$4M. IT experts said that the cost of hardware and software alone would be more than US$1M, the price quoted by "Company A".

The Ministry of Works’ position was that "Company A" was not compliant in some of the main areas of the Request For Proposal (RFP) and recommended that the Evaluation Committee meet to discuss the matter further. This meeting was held in March 2005. The meeting which lasted an entire day was described as fiery and contentious and ended with Chairman Burke calling for a final vote as to whether to enter the negotiation phase with "Company A" or to move on to "Company B." The vote resulted in a 5-2 decision in favour of "Company B."

In light of the vote, the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Works informed Dr Harstrup by letter that same month of March 2005 that the majority decision should hold and that the process should continue with "Company B."

According to reports, this did not meet with Dr Harstrup’s approval. Sources revealed that she proceeded to bypass the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Works and go directly to the Works Minister. Her arguments were that the Trinidad and Tobago government would save money if it went with "Company A." Secondly, she said that the concerns of the Ministry of Works were "minor" and did not warrant disqualifying "Company A." "Company A," she insisted, had answered all questions that had been raised about its suitability.

Dr Harstrup’s letter to the Works Minister contained what appeared to be a veiled ultimatum as to what the consequences would be if her personal recommendations were not followed, thereby attempting to negate the work of the Evaluation Committee.

Dr Harstrup’s punch line seemed to suggest that it was highly unlikely that the UNDP Contracts Review Committee at its headquarters in New York would accept a company other than that of the UNDP’s choice. The effect of this would mean an end to the joint partnership between the government of Trinidad and Tobago and the UNDP in this venture. It meant that government would have to restart the whole exercise.

Dr Harstrup, who appeared to be critical of her own Evaluation Committee, also suggested to the TT government to appoint an independent entity to review, assess and evaluate both proposals. Curiously, it was alleged that the Canadian firm chosen for this exercise reportedly had connections with Burke and the UN consultant on the Evaluation Committee Dr Sandro Beneditti, the UNDP’s technical advisor, both of whom were members of the original Evaluation Committee.

Other issues were raised. One concerned Burke’s experience in evaluations of this nature. He is said to have admitted that it was his first experience and has been described as a "novice." The Ministry of Works’ representatives on the Evaluation team were said to be of very high quality including IT specialists and systems experts, yet Dr Harstrup had been critical of them but only after the vote in favour of "Company B" was taken.

There was concern that Mr Burke was to be allowed to open discussions with "Company A" in breach of article 19 of the RFP which contained no provision for replacing the 5-2 vote to satisfy a personal view, by a non-member of the Evaluation Committee on who should get the contract. Sources told Sunday Newsday that the project is long overdue and urgently needed. If there had not been this wrangling with UNDP it would have already started and be well on its way to completion.