Michael Abrahams | Why we must not ‘move on’ from Market Me

Two weeks ago, a report from the Integrity Commission (IC) regarding its three-year probe into allegations of procurement irregularities and conflicts of interest regarding the awarding of contracts by the Ministry of Health and Wellness (MoHW) to Market Me Consulting Limited was tabled in Parliament.

The investigation found that a total of 15 contracts, with a cumulative value of $78,579,522.49, were awarded to the company over the period January 2017 to March 2021. Fourteen contracts, with a cumulative value of J$73,679,522.49, were awarded by the MoHW. One contract was awarded by the National Family Planning Board (NFPB) for J$4,900,000.00. The contracts were awarded by way of the direct contracting procurement methodology, meaning only one contractor was invited to participate.

The value allowable for the utilisation of direct contracting for Unsolicited Proposals is J$1.5 million. However, the investigation found that some contracts that resulted from such proposals exceeded this figure, constituting a breach. There were also three instances where the MoHW described the services rendered, in awarding the contracts, as being “reimbursement”, and the report found this to be “inappropriate” as it “circumvented established procurement procedures.”

Six contracts (the cumulative value exceeding the J$1.5 million threshold for which direct contracting would have been appropriate) were awarded on the same date in relation to the “same/connected activity/programme”, and this was deemed “irregular and contrary to the principle of competition” and “could be construed as an attempt to splinter the contract.”

UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL

The circumstances which gave rise to the award of a contract, for J$15,810,700.00, to Market Me were based upon an Unsolicited Proposal which was presented to the MoHW on July 12, 2016, by Market Me, for the implementation of a social marketing campaign to fund the Jamaica Moves Programme. However, an initial assessment of the proposal indicated “certain deficiencies which made it unacceptable.” For instance, Director of Investigations (DI) Kevon Stephenson considered the absence of documentation to defend the decision to award the contract to be “a serious irregularity.”

The report stated that under the procurement rules, an Unsolicited Proposal may be considered if it “offers a new concept, technology or something of an otherwise unique nature.” However, it was also reported that a similar physical activity campaign was being done on behalf of the Health Ministry at the time, called “Make it Count”, and that “the existence of a similar campaign should have disqualified the proposal from consideration by MoHW as an Unsolicited Proposal” adding that “In these circumstances, the MoHW should have engaged in a competitive bidding process upon receiving the proposal from Market Me or simply disregard it” and that the circumstances surrounding the Ministry’s acceptance of the proposal “lacked transparency and financial prudence”, was “questionable”, and constituted a breach.

The DI had seen no evidence to indicate that Dr Tufton was directly involved in the award of the contract to Market Me for $15,810,700.00, but found that his “actions could reasonably be considered to have indirectly influenced the engagement of Market Me, which ultimately resulted in that entity being awarded contracts of just under $80,000,000.00.” For example, in March 2016, he requested that the company be involved with all PR matters related to his office, and later asked that the MoHW receive and consider a presentation from the company during one of his regular senior management briefings. The DI concluded that there was evidence to support a finding that Dr Tufton’s actions “gave rise to, at its lowest, a perceived conflict of interest and thereby contravened the principles of transparency and good governance.”

ADVANCED PRIVATE INTEREST

The report stated that “Dr Tufton in his capacity as Minister of Health and Wellness and by extension a public official in the execution of his public function, appeared to have advanced a private interest which resulted in a monetary benefit to Market Me Consulting Limited of which Ms Lyndsey McDonnough is a co-managing director and an individual with whom, at the material time, he had a friendship.”

Ms McDonnough was present at a meeting of the Board of the National Health Fund (NHF) on January 25, 2017, where a proposal from the MoHW concerning the Jamaica Moves Programme was discussed and feedback given as to the need to improve the structure of the programme. However, the DI found her presence in the meeting to be “inappropriate and irregular” and stated, “In a meeting where valuable information was being provided about a programme in which she had a financial interest, Ms McDonnough’s presence at the meeting was wholly inappropriate and irregular.”

The report stated that “Neither Dr Tufton nor Ms McDonnough made formal declarations of conflict as required under the rules governing conflict of interest and broader governance best practice, and that they “both had a responsibility to have made formal declarations of conflict at the appropriate times and recuse themselves from any involvement which could be deemed or perceived to be a conflict of interest.” Regarding the conflict of interest concerns, the DI recommended that the matter be referred to the House Speaker.

The findings are concerning, as the report is fraught with evidence of breaches, irregularities, improprieties, a lack of transparency, poor governance and situations where the relevant parties should have recused themselves. However, what is equally or even more concerning are the responses of Dr Tufton and Ms McDonnough. Rather than being remorseful and contrite, they have embarked on a PR media tour, insulting our intelligence by arrogantly and dishonestly deflecting, grandstanding and gaslighting us into believing that the report exonerates them. But it does not. The absence of criminal charges does not exonerate one from being guilty of breaches and unethical behaviour. Rules were broken, and some of their actions were deemed inappropriate. Dr Tufton has expressed the desire to “move on”, but we should not. We should demand ethical, honest and transparent governance, as well as accountability. Allowing this to just “slide” sets a precedent for our officials to do as they please with no consequences, and this is unhealthy for our society.

Michael Abrahams is an obstetrician and gynaecologist, social commentator, and human-rights advocate. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and michabe_1999@hotmail.com, or follow him on X , formerly Twitter, @mikeyabrahams