Should we put up with the OUR?

Garnett Roper, GUEST COLUMNIST

On November 4, 2012, in a Gleaner article titled 'Jamaica's energy conundrum', I wrote: "The OUR is clearly not up to the mark." The OUR has unwittingly confirmed this by its handling of the bidding process for proposals for new generating capacity.

In a media release dated July 25, the OUR announced material changes to the bidding process by removing the requirement of a bond on the submission of bids and by extending the deadline for the submission of bids. In the same media release, the OUR stated, inter alia, "The adjustments were made after consultation with a number of stakeholders and will afford the opportunity to address ongoing expressions of concern regarding elements of the instructions for final proposal, particularly with respect to the proposal security."

The above actions of the OUR are injurious to its credibility and damaging to the business interests that have responded to its request for proposal. Furthermore, the extension of deadline by a further 15 days and removal of the security (bond) until "15 days after notification of the preferred bidder" are inimical to the national interest and cynical of the duty of the OUR to protect Jamaica's reputation as a sound business environment.

If those proposing to spend US$500 million on a generating facility are not prepared to indicate their seriousness of purpose by putting a deposit of U$5 million, why should they be taken seriously?

If the OUR cannot meet its own deadline, why would investment in a system managed by the OUR be regarded as safe?

One only needs to recall that the OUR having completed a limited tender, Minister of Energy Phillip Paulwell went to Parliament and promised, in his Budget presentation of May 24, a negotiation with the serious bidders to be completed by June 24.

The OUR appeared to have completely disregarded the minister's pronouncement to Parliament and its own findings from the bid process which closed on March 15, 2013 (and which relied on the judgement of an expensive international consultant) and has initiated a completely new bidding process. It set the deadline for yesterday, July 29, for final submission of those bids.

Entirely reasonable

The first process did not require a one per cent bid bond. Therefore, bidders could have been quite cavalier about their proposals. The second round of bidding required a one per cent bid bond.

The public regards the requirement of bonds to avoid frivolous proposals as entirely reasonable. The same OUR that set the July 29 closing date, having disregarded the minister's proposed June 24 end of negotiation date, has now added 10 days to the deadline.

Why should the OUR be taken seriously?

At best, therefore, this raises the question of competence of the OUR. However, when put against its declaration that it consulted with some, but not all, the stakeholders, questions of transparency arise.

The issue is, therefore, whether or not the national interest is in safe hands. The OUR has declared in a letter, in response to one of the bidders who questioned the OUR's approach, that it is not under the control of the Government.

The real question is not whether or not the OUR is out of control; it's whether we are prepared to put up with it.

The Rev Dr Garnett Roper is president of the Jamaica Theological Seminary. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and garnettroper@hotmail.com.