Environment Ministry: Independent Review Panel Report Exposes Legal Breaches

In a recent report, the Independent Review Panel (IRP) has expressed serious concerns regarding the integrity of contract awards within the Ministry of Environment. The IRP’s assessment followed an appeal from a contractor regarding a contract awarded in July 2023, revealing potential breaches of law by the ministry.

The IRP criticized the ministry for its initial attempts to obstruct the panel’s directives aimed at ensuring fair bidding processes, stating that instead of introducing solutions to improve the situation, the ministry contradicted evidence presented and its prior statements.

This led the panel to recommend the cancellation of the contract in question and the initiation of a new bidding exercise.

The contract under scrutiny was part of a tender launched on May 3, aimed at repairs and enhancements to places of worship across the island.

On July 3, the Ministry of Environment informed A. Jauferally Enterprise Ltd that their bid was unsuccessful, with the contract ultimately awarded to Prakash Foolchand Contractor Ltd.

Foolchand’s bid amounted to Rs 54,091,676, which was marginally higher than that of A. Jauferally Enterprise Ltd.

The IRP pointed out inconsistencies in the ministry’s rationale for not accepting the lower bid.

It noted that the ministry claimed the engineer assigned to the project did not meet the five years of total experience and two years of relevant experience required, excluding apprenticeship years from consideration.

However, the IRP found the explanations provided by the Bid Evaluation Committee during the appeal process to be “unsatisfactory, confusing, and at times contradictory.”

Furthermore, the panel observed a lack of clarity in the job description—which, if more clearly articulated, would likely have encouraged A. Jauferally to present a different engineer from his team of many qualified professionals.

Interestingly, the engineer in question had previously been involved in another project for the ministry, where the same experience criteria had been applied without issue, allowing A. Jauferally Enterprise Ltd to secure the contract back then.

The panel also scrutinized the cost estimates used in the tendering process.

These estimates, critical for guiding the ministry in understanding contract costs based on historic contracts, inflation, and market prices, are supposed to be fixed in order to maintain transparency and integrity in the process.

The IRP flagged that cost estimates were altered at the final stages of the assessment process, raising concerns about governance and the potential for corruption.

Specifically, the IRP noted that Foolchand Contractor Ltd’s bid exceeded the established threshold by more than 15%, which, under ministry regulations, barred any possibility of negotiation.

In its concluding remarks, the IRP emphasized that the ministry had numerous opportunities to rectify the situation instead of misusing time and resources and ultimately violating the law.

The IRP ordered that the tender be reissued, adhering strictly to the original cost estimates. Members of the panel expressed their disappointment at the ministry’s steadfast defense of its positions and expressed hope that this incident would be an isolated issue in an otherwise satisfactory history of public procurement in the country.

Additional Contract Controversies

This incident is not the only cause for concern within the Ministry of Environment.

On November 15, 2023, the ministry launched a framework agreement for the construction and maintenance of places of worship, shifting from a model of small, individual contracts to a three-year, Rs 300 million consolidated agreement for multiple projects.

One significant issue raised is that most of the contractors submitting bids fall into Medium II categories, which legally prohibits them from participating in tenders exceeding Rs 200 million.

Although the bidding documents suggest that the contract could be awarded to up to ten contractors in phases, the fundamental problem remains that the base contract value exceeds the legal limit for Medium II contractors.

Ultimately, two contractors were awarded the project despite not being the lowest bidders, with one contractor’s final bid surpassing Rs 356 million—more than 15% above the initial sum.

This situation raised further questions about the ministry’s adherence to procurement regulations.

When contacted for comment regarding these ongoing controversies, the Ministry of Environment committed to providing a response by Monday, August 26.