Controversy is currently brewing at the Jos University Teaching Hospital, JUTH, over alleged violation of Procurement Act in the award of N118million contract for the completion of Amenity Ward in the hospital.
Investigations by DAILY NIGERIAN revealed that after the bidding and opening process were completed, the university awarded the contract to the company that turned highest in the bidding, Andex Press & Allied Services Ltd., which is registered by the Corporate Affairs Commission as a printing press.
The investigation also gathered that the firm is believed to be in the hospital management’s good book.
Apparently angered by the development, the ‘lowest bidder’ in the contract bidding, Dantonic Investment Limited, approached the Bureau for Public Procurement BPP for respite.
The Managing Director of the company, Onah Christian-Onaura, told DAILY NIGERIAN that the JUTH management had violated the hospital’s procurement act, hence his decision to petition the BPP.
“I have written the JUTH management drawing their attention to the violation of the BPP act because I posted the lowest amount of N114,095,168.25, but the contract was awarded to Andex Press who posted the highest amount of N118,789,516.2.
READ ALSO: NNPC donates N230m Renal Transplant equipment to Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital
“I wrote a complaint to the BPP, drawing their attention for further action, yet the JUTH management went ahead with the execution of the project,” he alleged.
Consequently, the BPP wrote the hospital management, directing them to halt the contract and forward all the relevant procurement documents for independent review, it in line with the provisions of section 54(4)(a) of the public procurement act 2007.
A letter dated February 03, 2020 and addressed to Dantonic Investment limited, said a letter has been forwarded to the JUTH management to suspend further action pending review of the process.
“The Bureau has forwarded your complaint to the hospital directing it to suspend any further action on the procurement, and forward all the relevant procurement document for independent review by it in line with the provisions of section 54(4)(a) of the public procurement act, 2007,” part of the letter read.
However, checks by this newspaper revealed that, as at the time of filing this report, the construction project was still going on, in spite of the BPP’s directive.
When contacted, the Chief Medical Director of the hospital, Prof. Edward Banwat, claimed that the process was transparent and in line with laid down rules, stressing that any contractor who was not satisfied has the right to make complaints.
The CMD also claimed that his office did not receive any letter from the BPP calling for the suspension of the project.
“The law says anybody who is not satisfied should be shown the template of the analysis.
“Any complaint we receive we give it attention because we run a transparent process.
“One might post the lowest price and still not get the contract after the technical aspect is considered,” the CMD noted.
READ ALSO: Blood samples of suspected Lassa fever patients sent to Lagos for analysis – Kano govt
The chairman of the hospital’s board, Barth Nwibe, told DAILY NIGERIAN that he was neither involved nor carried along in the contract process.
He however said that he was aware of the controversy going on in the hospital.
“I am aware of the complaint from a contractor, which I forwarded to the CMD, but the board was not involved in the award of the contract,” he said.
The CMD confirmed the chairman’s assertion, claiming that the procurement act does not involve the board in contract awards.
“In the act, the boards are not part of the procurement process,” he said.
However, checks by this newspaper revealed that article 7 of the act establishing the board of teaching hospital, section( 1) a, b and c stipulates that the board is empowered to; “Equip, maintain and operate the hospital so as to provide facilities for diagnose, curative, promotion and rehabilitative service in medical treatment,” and;
“To construct, equip, maintain and operate such clinic, outpatient departments, laboratories, research or experimental stations and other like institutions…”.
When contacted, lawyers slammed the CMD over the non-inclusion of the board in the contract, describing the act as a fraud.
