Sindh govt barred from making advance payments to contractors

ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has barred the Sindh government from awarding any unsolicited contract under the garb of urgency thus intimating the provincial government of action if any project is awarded or any amount is paid to the contractors for the month of May and June, documents available with The News reveal.
The bureau has written two letters to 69 departments of Sindh government intimating them that any withdrawal of money or award of contract without open bidding will amount to corruption.
A letter written on June 22, 2015 says, “Some departments are drawing payment from development and non-development funds maintained in the AG Sindh office and District Accounts Officers for payment in advance to contractors for procurement of goods, services and works.
All this is being done in haste to avoid lapse of their respective budget by the end of fiscal year. This premature payment of funds to contractors before execution of assigned or even before formal award of contract is in violation of SPPRA rules.
It has also been observed that huge amounts are being drawn on account of such development schemes/projects which were never scheduled in the Annual Development Plan and for which no provisioning was made by the Finance Department at the beginning of financial year.
It is requested to provide list of NITs/contracts awarded during the month of May and June 2015 for which payments have been made to the contractors and also provide present status of such contract/projects.”
Another such letter sent to the Sindh government departments on June 2, 2015 says: “It has been reported to the NAB that the Sindh government departments are awarding unsolicited contracts for cleaning of drains, rivers, nullahs to prevent forthcoming monsoon season in May June 2015 and some departments are making procurement of unsolicited equipment under the disguise of urgent requirement to combat anti-terrorist activities. Such contracts are being awarded in violation of existing Procumbent rules.”