Enemalta inquiry finds planning, control weaknesses

An inquiry by the National Audit Office on the purchase of personal computers by Enemalta Corporation, found that the corporation had ended up spending Lm62,000 on 170 machines (dealing concurrently with two suppliers) managed by a single contract whose ambit was not supposed to exceed Lm20,000 on 50 units and one supplier. The NAO concluded that this revealed not only weaknesses in planning and control but a lack of coordination between the component sections of the corporation.

The Prime Minister ordered the inquiry after questions were raised in the local media about the way the computers had been procured. It was reported that a tender valued well over Lm20,000 had been adjudicated departmentally and that part of the tender had been awarded to a local company which was managed by the then-serving Enemalta Corporation chairman. The NAO said there was no reason to believe that procurement officers at Enemalta Corporation were unaware during the preparation of the tender document (and therefore well before the call) that the initial quantities on which the estimated cost of the tender was based would not have sufficed to cover the actual needs of the corporation for new computers. The fact that they knew that the quantity could fall short of actual requirements was illustrated by the insertion of a special condition in the tender document to the effect that quantities actually contracted for could be increased within six months. The established procedure for such contracts strictly admitted no insiders to sit on adjudication boards, be these public or departmental. The contract under review was in fact evaluated and adjudicated departmentally (set up without ministerial approval) by a board composed entirely of insiders (Enemalta personnel).

In its inquiry the NAO found no plans outlining the corporation's requirements before the publication of the tender. This was indicative of a lack of coordinated planning, which was essential before going to tender.

The corporation had not ensured that all its procurement officers were sufficiently knowledgeable and well versed with regard to regulations that limited their powers.

From interviews held it was quite evident that most of those concerned did not know their exact duties. There did not seem to be the right corporate culture prevailing that envisaged a marshalling of priorities drawn up and laid out for discussion in a business plan, with established reporting and responsibility lines. This shortcoming was especially evident where there seemed to be two separate units with competing decisional powers: the administration officers and the technical side.

The NAO recommended that such a matter should be given top priority, and that detailed and clear guidelines should be drawn up, published and distributed among procurement officers across the public sector instructing them about the importance of being vigilant in complying with laws and regulations governing the tendering process.