MEMBER of Parliament for South West St Catherine Everald Warmington is contending that the report of Auditor General Pamela Monroe Ellis on her investigations into contracts awarded by the St Catherine Parish Council for roadworks in his constituency in 2008 has smeared his reputation.

The Auditor General in her 2010/11 report, now being scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament, has accused the St Catherine Parish Council ofprocurement breaches with respect to the award of eight contracts totalling $13 million on the same day to the same contractor in the same community.

According to the report, there was fragmentation and avoidance of the scrutiny of the National Contracts Commission despite the St Catherine Parish Council contending that the contracts were awarded in accordance with the Government Procurement Guidelines.

Her investigations followed on the heels of a report by Contractor General Greg Christie in 2010 in which he said preliminary investigations alleged that the bulk of government works contracts for South West St Catherine found their way to Strathairn Construction, in 2008, a firm which at the time was said to be under Warmington’s control.

On Tuesday, Warmington said the Auditor General had not done her homework.

“Are you aware that all these funds were released separately at separate times? These eight contracts were not done in one community, they were done in one division, the Sydenham Division, so packaging them together is a different issue. It’s a division, not a community, so all of these lanes were not in the same community, some of the roads were in Old Harbour Bay,” he argued.

“I have served on this committee since the 80s and now and what comes here in the Auditor General’s report is always taken as gospel. I have serious concerns now based on what is here because what is in the report does not conform with the reality or the facts. We should not have reports coming here that are not correct,” the South West St Catherine MP said.

Warmington was also miffed that although the contracts were awarded in the 2008/09 fiscal period, it was still being mentioned in the 2010/11 report. He was also of the opinion that the Auditor General had seemingly ignored “the original document sent from the council, stating that the Contractor General conducted an investigation into the award of these contracts and found no evidence of collusion and that the councillors conducted the procurement in accordance with the guidelines.

“The Auditor General said if the issue is systemic or recurrent it is brought back… I have all the reports from the Contractor General’s Department from 2006 and I found nothing in here having to deal with the St Catherine Parish Council breaching procurement guidelines or contracts, there is no mention from 2006 to 2010 of anything having to do with contracts in the St Catherine Parish Council. How then was this to be systemic or recurrent? It was supposed to be contracted in 2008/09 and it is recorded as 2009/10. There is nothing systemic or recurrent to warrant it being brought back or reported in another year,” he contended.

Deputy Auditor General Donald Mason said the concern was with the manner in which the work had been divided.

“In our review we had no contention with regards to the adherence to the rules, what we are saying is that maybe the people would have gotten better value for money if the eight contracts were parcelled and awarded as a package. There are certain costs, when you award the contract on an individual basis certain overheads wouldn’t be shared while if it were awarded as a package certain overheads could be shared,” Mason said.

“On the face of it, it could appear as if it was fragmentation to escape scrutiny but in terms of the award of the contract the council adhered to the procurement guidelines. Our opinion is that if these are packaged and awarded it would be up for scrutiny at various levels because of the value of the work and because of the volume of work the taxpayers might be able to get the same amount of work at a more reasonable cost,” he added.

According to Mason, the Auditor General’s “problem was not with the contractor” but the parish council.

“We are saying the council could have done better with the contracts. We are saying the approval limit was that contracts of $4 million and above should have gone to the National Contracts Commission so when we look we see contracts for $3.9 million and we are saying on the face of it, it appeared like there was fragmentation to avoid scrutiny,” he explained.

Secretary Manager for the St Catherine Parish Council Christopher Powell was, in the meantime, adamant that the council did not breach the procurement guidelines. “We did an estimation and we used the procurement guidelines to the ‘T’ and awarded to the lowest bidder,” Powell said.

Government committee member Dr DK Duncan said the “implications” of the report were not to be dismissed.

“Politicians are assumed to be guilty whenever they do anything before being proven innocent and I get the impression that that perception is what guided this comment by the Auditor General. What Mr Warmington is saying is that over the years great trust has been put into the reports done by the Auditor General and, therefore, whenever a situation like this arises it will be taken for granted by the public of Jamaica, as it was by the media, that here goes another politician who is a thief, here goes another programme that is not intended to give value to the public,” Dr Duncan said.

“I think we really have to ask the Auditor General to clarify this not just by saying we have investigated and nothing happened. This is one in a series of false indictments on the political process in this country which has led to where we are now,” he added.

“The Auditor General’s Department should have done their homework and known that that was the case before putting into print this most damaging statement, not just to the member in particular but to the political process in general. I am very upset about it because wherever I sit I find this same prejudice, this stereotyping that all of us are crooks… I don’t think the answer can be as glib as to say okay we have realised this,” said Dr Duncan.

“The Contractor General said he found nothing. The Auditor General did not need a subsequent report. What they have here is word for word what is in the first letter the OCG wrote to say it would be investigated. They need to be careful, much more careful than that, people’s integrity is important,” a clearly put out Warmington said.