ZET - JamaicaGazette.com
Jamaica Government News and Information
Ministries, Departments and Agencies

Page 34

GoJ Policy Capacity Building Martin Abrams -31-


At the time of writing, this is an example of the Cabinet Committees in the Jamaican decision-making system. The complete structure, including all members and technical support can be obtained from the Cabinet Office. Cabinet

Chair – Prime Minister Cabinet Committees:

Development Council Chair – Prime Minister

Mandate • Provide direction, co-ordination, integration and monitoring of overall policy • Establish criteria for funding projects of a national priority • Coordinate all matters to do with Public Enterprises • Monitor the implementation of the National Industrial Policy • Determine financing of projects from the Capital Development Fund under the Bauxite

Production Levy

Members Ministers: Finance & Planning; Labour & Social Security; Mining & Energy; Transport & Works; Agriculture; Tourism & Sport; Industry, Commerce & Technology

Legislation Committee Chair – Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade


• Decide on the legislative programme for the government • Consider recommendations for the setting of drafting instructions • Review draft bills


Ministers: Information; Education, Youth and Culture and Leader of Government Business in the Senate; Tourism and Sports; Mining and Energy; Transport & Works; National Security and Leader of Government Business in the House; Minister of Justice and Attorney General; Labour and Social Security Ministers of State: Finance and Planning; Parliamentary Affairs; Agriculture; Education, Youth and Culture

Infrastructure Committee

Chair – Minister of Transport and Works

Mandate • Identify current and potential infrastructure projects and monitor implementation • Monitor and approve awarded public sector contracts based on recommendations of the National

Contracts Commission

June 11, 2021

Page 68


Page 67 Compendium of a Review of Aspects of Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica

(PCJ) and a Petrojam+Limited">Comprehensive Audit of Petrojam Limited December 2018

Table 21 Extract from Bid Evaluation Documents Requested/

Information Requirement Bidder #1

(Consultant) Bidder #2 Bidder #3

Form of Bid √ √ √

Bill of Quantities/Price Schedule √ √ √

Declaration √ - √

Disclaimer √ √ √

Decision: Responsive (YES/No) YES NO YES

 Bid Quotation (US$) 1,919,200 1,879,000 863,717

 Delivery time proposed 68 days 336 days 190 days

Source: Petrojam’s bidding documents

3.1.43. Our review of the Consultant’s bid revealed that it included additional items that were not part

of the bid specifications, thereby increasing the bid amount. On three occasions66, the Procurement

Committee rejected the Bid Evaluation Committee’s recommendation to award the contract to the

Consultant and requested further verification of the Consultant’s ability to undertake the contract.

However, we observed that the Procurement Committee subsequently endorsed the procurement which

was approved by the General Manager. We saw no evidence that the requested verification was

conducted to inform approval by the Procurement Committee. Also, Petrojam did not provide evidence

that the procurement was approved by the Board of Directors. By way of correspondence dated June 9,

2017, addressed to the Permanent Secretary MSET, the NCC endorsed the award of the contract to the

Consultant for US$1.9 million.

By way of correspondence dated June 26, 2017, the Permanent Secretary, MSET indicated that the

Cabinet">Infrastructure Committee of Cabinet recommended the approval of the contract to Consultant (name

deleted) for US$1.9 million, in keeping with the endorsement of the NCC. The Cabinet approved the

recommendation of the Infrastructure Committee.

3.1.44. On July 10, 2017, Petrojam and the Consultant signed an agreement for the fabrication of the new

Powerformer furnace (F-2) for $245.5 million (US$1.919 million). The works were scheduled to last 68

days after Petrojam’s final approval of all drawings, including final engineering information. However,

inadequate planning, poor project execution and monitoring resulted in variations of $38 million

(US$301,446) or 16 per cent of the contract sum. We requested evidence of the contractor’s submission

of the engineering drawing and Petrojam’s approval in order to confirm Petrojam’s acceptance, timeline

for the remaining 68 days of fabrication and the basis for the first payment. We found no evidence that

Petrojam approved all the drawings and engineering information submitted by the Consultant, before

fabrication commenced.

3.1.45. In September 2017, Petrojam requested a change in the construction material proposed by the

Consultant to reflect what was stipulated in its bidding document. However, the Consultant indicated

that the tubes were already fabricated with the material it proposed. Consequently, Petrojam purchased

the required material at a cost of $15.3 million (US$121,630) for the Consultant’s use. Petrojam did not

66 April 13, 19 & May 4, 2017.

June 10, 2021