Education Ministry’s weak tender system is a cash-cow, claims security contractor
PETALING JAYA: The spotlight is now on the Education Ministry’s weak tender system following the revelation by the Auditor-General that it wasted RM2.052bil on sub-standard security services from 2010 to 2012, with some contractors saying the weaknesses had given rise to allegations of kickbacks.
The issues included Kuala Lumpur-based security firms being given contracts in states where they did not even have branches or state representatives to ensure these hired guards were actually carrying out their duties.
A security contractor explained that each state would have several zones, each having about 10 schools.
Security companies could then tender for as many contracts as they want all over the country.
Each bid would include a site visit to the schools. During these visits, many companies get agents to go on their behalf. Sometimes, one agent could represent five companies, he said.
“Most companies won’t even know where the schools are. Even we use agents.
“Who has time to visit these schools?” he said, adding that the headmasters would sign and verify that the company had conducted the site visits.
The security contractor claimed that each contract for one zone would be worth between RM90,000 and RM130,000 per month, depending on location and the salary paid to the guards. Each contract is effective for a three-year period.
“The MOE can be the biggest cash cow for those interested in making money because they have assets everywhere,” he said, adding that the contractors needed inside connections to get the jobs.
Kickbacks would have to be given to those giving out the contracts and the agent, said the contractor. Each would receive 2.5% of kickbacks from the total worth of the contract.
“If you get a contract worth RM100,000 in one zone you will have to give RM5,000 in kickbacks or commissions every month. There is no way you can get a contract otherwise,” he claimed.
There are 10,094 schools nationwide.
Another contractor said the contracts provided easy money with no emphasis on who actually gave the best service.
“How is a Klang Valley company supposed to monitor a job they perform in Kelantan?” he said.
