Several improper activities associated with Parliament Automation Project

The Auditor General has decided to submit a case on the improper activities associated with the Parliament Chamber Automation Project, to the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).

This was noted in the Audit Report of the Parliament for 2011 published today.

The MVR2.1-million Chamber Automation project was undertaken in 2010 to reduce the use of paper at the Parliament.

As part of the project, digital systems complete with touch screens were installed on the desks of every MP to facilitate viewing documents.

The audit report noted that the 'paperless environment' project was awarded to a Maldivian company for MVR1.3 million on 25 March 2010.

The company was given 37 days to complete the project, however, it took 81 days and spent additional MVR720,425 to complete the project.

The name of the company was not disclosed in the report.

The Parliament has on a previous ocassion revealed that the project was awarded to a company called Roseware.

The report noted that additional funds had to be spent on the project because the Parliament Secretariat requested the Consultant to include a software called Thin Client – a software which turned out to be incompatible with the hardware used at the Parliament as well as the touch screens and touch keyboards used in the project.

While MVR24,000 was spent on obtaining expert advice alone, the Consultant was not held responsible for the additional money that had to be spent on the project.

Following this, 100 Thin Client touch pads had to be removed and replaced by Nettops.

The bid evaluation process for those who expressed interest to provide Nettops was conducted against the criteria, and the project was awarded for MVR830,000 to a company which supposedly won the bid.

The new company was paid MVR1.2 million for installation of six servers, eight server switches and 100 touch screens.

The audit report noted that the Parliament Secretariat had conferred undue advantage to the Contractor.

For instance, the Secretariat did not deduct liquidated damages following failure by the Contractor to complete the project before the agreed deadline, as required by the Finance Act. It was instead stated in the contract that the Secretariat can decide whether to deduct liquidated damages or not.

The report included several opinions indicating that the project was undertaken without proper studies and in a manner that was not necessarily beneficial to the Parliament.

Moreover, the over-two-million Rufiya project should have been submitted to the Tender Evaluation Board as required by article 8.24 of the Finance Act.

A hundred pieces each of monitors, keyboards, Nettops, and Microsoft 7 software were obtained even though they were to be used only by the 77 MPs, the Parliament Speaker and the Parliament Secretary General.

The report noted that despite the implementation of the new system, Parliament expenditure on photocopying and toner cartridges had not gone down.

Thus, considering the manner in which the project had been carried out, the Auditor General recommended that a case in this regard be submitted to the ACC.

He also recommended that action be taken against any employee or group of employees who failed to take action when the project was delayed.

He suggested that a “Requirement Analysis” be conducted in the future before such projects are undertaken.

The Auditor General also advised the Parliament Secretariat to ensure that projects worth more than MVR1.5 million are submitted to the Tender Evaluation Board.