|
NEWS RELEASE |
|
| May 19, 2006 | For
Immediate Release |
AUDITOR
GENERAL’S REPORT REVEALS ANOTHER ADSCAM?
“How much was paid in commissions? Who got paid and
where did the money end up?”
OTTAWA - Saskatchewan M.P. Garry Breitkreuz and long-time critic of the Liberal gun registry couldn’t believe it when he read section 4.83 in the Auditor General’s most recent report on the gun registry. “It sounded so much like the sponsorship scandal, I almost fell out of my chair,” exclaimed Breitkreuz. “Mrs. Fraser’s report tells us that contracts were awarded through a non-competitive process, lacked due regard to economy, added two additional commissions and increased costs by an average of 25 percent. Commissions for what?” asked Breitkreuz. “How much was paid in commissions? Who got paid and where did the money end up? This is exactly what happened in Adscam.”
Excerpt from Chapter 4, point 4.83, page 120 of the Auditor General’s Report:
| The
Information Technology Services Branch (ITSB). This
branch of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) provides
IT professional services to departments through three master contracts
it has with IT consulting firms. These contracts were awarded
through a competitive procurement process. Client departments request
professional services from ITSB through a service agreement. We found that in 11 cases, incumbent contractors who had been at the Centre for several years remained there from 2004 to 2005 under ITSB supply arrangements. We found evidence that the Centre asked ITSB to provide its list of incumbent contractors to the IT consulting firm under contract with ITSB, with the intention of continuing their services. PWGSC officials said that they agreed to this practice because the Centre told them that it needed the incumbents in order to meet operational requirements. We also found documents showing that PWGSC staff assured the Centre that it was procuring professional services legitimately. In our opinion, because the individual task authorizations were used to direct business to specified contractors, the end result was a non-competitive process and did not meet the objectives of the Treasury Board Contracting Policy. They also lacked due regard to economy—for each incumbent, the Centre paid ITSB, who paid the IT consulting firm, who, in many cases, paid the sub-contractor, who finally paid the incumbent. Using ITSB added two additional commissions to the cost of a consultant. We noted that on average the cost to the Centre for each consultant increased by about 25 percent under this supply arrangement. [Emphasis added] |
The Auditor General continues her revelations in point 4.85 that states:
| We also found specific cases in our sample of 147 contracts that did not follow good contracting practices. Her report went on to provide samples of these contracts and concluded: Several fixed-price contracts were awarded to three contractors in 2001 and 2002 that, in some cases, had no measurable deliverable, and no record of a deliverable product being received. The initial value of each contract was below the $25,000 limit, but the final values were much higher: $50,000, $107,000, and $319,431. We noted that requests for the contractors' security clearance stated that they would have no access to the work site. In these cases, the Centre was the contracting authority. We will be reviewing these contracts in greater detail. [Emphasis added] |
“Last November I released documents showing five companies were burning up $527 million in useless gun registry computer contracts. When the Auditor General finishes digging into the firearms fiasco it could make Adscam look like small potatoes and the Liberals look even worse than they do now. “What will we call this one: Gunscam or Gungate?” wondered Breitkreuz.
-30-
Le 19 mai
2006 - LA VÉRIFICATRICE GÉNÉRALE AURAIT-ELLE DÉCOUVERT
UN NOUVEAU SCANDALE DE L’AMPLEUR DE CELUI DES COMMANDITES . . .
click
here