A former procurement officer told the High Court yesterday that New Zealand medical services firm Hospineer had been disqualified from two Health Ministry tenders before later being awarded a contract after a waiver was granted.
Solomoni Suguta, who previously worked for the Fiji Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Services, told Justice Usaia Ratuvili that Hospineer’s bids for tenders CTN 66/2011 and CTN 153/2011 were ruled out because they proposed a “closed system” that the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) found less favourable than open systems. CTN 66/2011 covered laboratory equipment for subdivisional hospitals, while CTN 153/2011 related specifically to the purchase of three automated biochemistry analysers.
Suguta said the TEC carried out a comparative evaluation and recommended another New Zealand company as the preferred supplier, citing both the lowest evaluated cost and the operational advantages of an open system, which the TEC said offered greater flexibility and potential cost savings. Despite that recommendation, Suguta told the court a waiver was subsequently granted and the contract was awarded to Hospineer.
The witness described being summoned, alongside a colleague, by then-Health Minister Dr Neil Sharma after CTN 66/2011 concluded. He said they were asked to explain why Hospineer had not been awarded the tender; Suguta and his colleague responded that the decision had been made by the TEC. Suguta also testified that he only learned of the waiver request for CTN 153/2011 after a colleague informed him, and that for CTN 66/2011 his awareness came when he was directed to prepare the purchase order.
The State alleges Dr Sharma intentionally failed to comply with statutory tender requirements and acted to undermine the process in favour of Hospineer. Prosecutors further allege that former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama and former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed‑Khaiyum recklessly abused their positions by approving a waiver of the tender process without lawful justification, in breach of the Procurement Regulations 2010.
Suguta’s testimony is the latest development in the ongoing trial, which has focused on whether procedural safeguards in public procurement were bypassed and whether senior officials acted improperly in facilitating the waiver and subsequent award. Justice Ratuvili is presiding over the proceedings, during which multiple witnesses have been called to detail the tender evaluations, communications around the waivers, and the decision-making that followed.
No decision has been reached in the case. The trial continues, with more evidence expected to be presented as the prosecution seeks to establish whether the waiver and contract award were lawful and properly justified under the procurement framework.
Leave a comment