by Rick Lowe
Mr. Brave Davis (PLP), Deputy Prime Minister has complained has complained that the outgoing FNM government signed some 80 contracts worth over $24 million dollars during the months of March through the recent election campaign ending early May.
It was even suggested by Mr. Perry Christie (PLP), Prime Minister, during the campaign, that this was "open bribery".
Of course the FNM accused the PLP of doing the same thing when in the waning days of their 2002 – 2007 term they signed a contract to rebuild the Straw Market for over $30 million (?) that was subsequently revoked and built for substantially less. Did the outgoing party back then sign more than just the Straw Market contract?
No party has clean hands in these matters so to speak, but the legitimate question raised is whether or not governments should be signing contracts nearing the end of its term. The government and civil service still have to function during the final months of an administration, so it's a difficult call when, or even if, there should be a cut off date for signing contracts.
Obviously roads, buildings, docks and more need repairs on an ongoing basis, so should hands be tied from continuing the routine work of government? I'm not sure. And as government becomes larger and larger, with more buildings and other physical plant, ongoing maintenance becomes a challenge.
Maybe limits can be set over the last two or three months, but what happens if there's an emergency that needs immediate attention?
80 contracts for $24 million were signed representing an average agreement of $300,000 each. Surely the country should know more about what they are for before agreeing it was "open bribery". If there is bribery etc, then there is a case for the courts. Let a judge decide based on the evidence.
Incoming governments reviewing contracts is not a problem, the private sector reviews contracts all the time to make sure the arrangement provides value for money. The 2007 straw market contract was rescinded because the original scope did not provide value for money. Why does the government need a movie theatre and restaurant for example?
If recent contracts are being reviewed to simply "get even" with perceived political transgressions, or to give them to cronies because the friends of the former government won a legitimate bid, then it sets the country back.
As long as the contracts were signed based on the criteria issued by the government, were in the approved capital budget, are necessary, and they were awarded to legitimate businesses then lets move on.
It's not clear how the government can stop signing contracts and continue functioning at a reasonable pace because an election is approaching. Maybe Government Ministers should not be present at contract signings during election time. This will remove the spectre of "vote getting" by signing the contracts during the final days of any administration.
Rick:
All of this reminds me of the two women who were having a serious argument and one of their children suddenly said, “Ma call her a bitch before she calls you one!”
Government business should never be halted because of an election. However this type of behaviour during the silly season is to be expected. Decorum of politicians at the best of times is pretty atrocious, viz the house of assembly. Unfortunately we seem to be unable to separate politics from civil service. The only thing we can hope for is that any incoming government will analyse all ongoing and new contract expenditure in a fair and equitable manner. Does it happen? That depends on the behaviour of our politicians, and our acceptance of it. If we demand better we will get better.
Absolutely correct to both of you.
Opposition parties always complain of the awarding of contracts and changing boundaries, but somehow they win the government in spite of it all?
So I guess the conspiracy of awarding contracts and boundary cuts are myths? Most of the time anyway.
If only the premise that Mr. Lowe uses was truthful then one could argue the point he attempts to make. The staw market that was built cost substantially less than $30m? At least if you’re going to use $ figures that are easily verified use the correct figures. $23m before the electrification is figured in and not taking into account the cost associated with breaking a legit contract. Premise false.
Thanks conflicted.
A $7 million savings seems substantial to me?
And had the other plan been constructed I’m sure there would have been cost over runs as with all contracts, so neither of us are comparing apples to apples.
But does that invalidate the other points made as you suggest?
Not sure of the logic there, but please explain.
There is no $7m saving. The electrical work that had to be done would have cost the government about $5m give or take a few 100 thousand $. However, given that you chose to use as an example a substantially smaller building which cost more to build per square foot than the proposed/contracted/designed one I just wanted to inform you that if you come to the table with flawed information to present as the basis of your argument it should not be considered. I would think that that’s logical.
So what savings were there?
Can you list all the costs please?
Also, we do not know how much more the $32 million dollar quote would have cost had it been built. Not to mention the ongoing expenses of the restaurant and theatre etc. We know just how profitable government enterprises like that are.
Additionally,the point being made is the government signed one contract in 2007 for over $30 and the 2012 government signed 80 contracts for $24 million.
Also, how many other contracts were signed before the 2007 election?
Both important points to consider to be fair.
We can’t really compare apples to apples can we?
You agree with the other points/suggestions made then?
Perhaps a salient point would be that anything Government does/builds costs much more than it would cost in the private sector,
There by making the numbers themselves meaningless, aside the obvious detriment to the taxpayer.
Slush increases at election times, but never goes away.
UBP, PLP, FNM all follow the same formula, just with different beneficiaries but from all strata of Bahamian society.
So true On stanby,so true
@On standby patiently waiting….. & Dennis The initial argument is therefore moot. Thanks for the affirmation gents.
By the way, Mr Lowe, Perry Christie was never a PLP Prime Minister. He was and now is the Prime Minister of The Commonwealth Of The Bahamas as was Hubert Ingraham before him.
Thanks conflicted.
I have changed it from, Mr. Perry Christie, PLP Prime Minister to Mr. Perry Christie (PLP), Prime Minister.
It was obviously so the uninitiated reader could discern.
Thanks for confirming you agree with my points in that case conflicted.