PAC members raise concerns about oversight at Parliament

Admitting that the Houses of Parliament breached the procurement guidelines in acquiring 16 air-conditioning (AC) units, Clerk to the Houses Colleen Lowe blamed a former operations manager for the violation, saying that he was on a “frolic of his own”.

Her response led to several questions from some members of Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) who wanted to know how an officer of Parliament could be contravening government guidelines without proper checks and balances in place to flag any departure from established standards.

In a special audit tabled in Parliament in December, Auditor General Pamela Monroe Ellis reported that Parliament did not follow the required competitive bidding process for the procurement of 16 air-conditioning units amounting to $3.2 million.

The Houses of Parliament procured the equipment directly from a single supplier instead of using the limited-tender method, which mandates at least three quotations for procurements between $1.5 million and $5 million.

Monroe Ellis said this breach of the government procurement guidelines undermines transparency and fairness and denied other suppliers the opportunity to participate. The supplier was also engaged without a formal contract, purchase order, or provision of warranty.

Appearing before the PAC on Tuesday, Lowe said Parliament had put measures in place to prevent a recurrence of the procurement breach.

Lowe told committee members that some of the AC units were purchased by the FOM when she was away on official business.

“What would have transpired in this case is that the facilities manager would have gone to ATL, and he would have solicited to acquire these units because he would be known to the persons because we have a relationship with them,” she said.

Lowe admitted that the operations manager had received permission from her to acquire at least three AC units to replace defective ones at Gordon House.

Committee chairman Julian Robinson said the absence of controls meant that the operations manager could have abused the system.

“When you raise the issue of your absence, it was a red flag for me because your absence should not be an issue because somebody deputises for you. There is a process that somebody should follow that should be signed off before someone can commit funds on behalf of the Parliament.”

Quoting from an email written by the former operations manager, dated July 30, 2025, Peter Bunting, said, “The procurement and installation of the 16 AC units were in full compliance with thresholds applicable at the time, consistent with the updated procurement policy effective March 27, 2025 ...”.

However, Lowe indicated that the former operations manager appeared to have splintered the contracts, which was not in keeping with the procurement rules.

Bunting argued that it would be making a mockery of the policy if officers could splinter purchases to get them below the threshold.

Christopher Brown, another committee member, said it appeared that the management of Parliament was not “talking with each other in terms of the functional issues”.

He said that even if the clerk is overseas, there is the need for a proper accountability structure to be in place with proper reporting channels.

Noting that the buck stops with the clerk, Brown said he felt “a little bad” for the FOM, who was said to be on a frolic of his own.

“The overarching management of the Parliament requires that somebody holds all the officers accountable ... so that they are not on a frolic of their own,” Brown said.

The clerk said when she holds persons accountable, there is the narrative that she is being “vindictive” and is “harassing” the staff.

edmond.campbell@gleanerjm.com