UN
Response
On Chinese Contractor Doesn't Mention the Firm or Its
Violations
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 21 -- When faced with questions about corruption,
the UN these days belatedly responds with generalize press statements
which ignore the questions to which the UN is purportedly responding.
On
February 17,
Inner City Press asked
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokeman
Martin Nesirky a simple question about Suntech,
a Chinese company
which put out a press
release bragging about an $80 million contract
it got from the UN:
Inner
City
Press: this Suntech Power, a Chinese-based photovoltaic company,
announced that it has won a $180 million contract from the UN to
provide panels, solar panels, I guess, to peacekeeping missions. I
wanted to, one, if you could confirm it; it is a pretty big contract.
Two, it doesn’t seem, this company doesn’t seem to be listed
anywhere in the UN, in the vendor, approved vendor lists. And the
CEO is apparently on the Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on
Energy and Climate Change. So I am just wondering, were there any —
if that’s the case, the final one — were there any precautions
taken in the procurement? Were there other bidders? Can we have
some presentation of how the contract was given and whether it’s
appropriate, the way they announced it, and that they are not a
listed vendor?
Spokesperson:
I saw the same press release as you did on my Google News Alert, and
I have already asked my colleagues in DPKO/DFS for some background on
that.
Inner
City Press
asked the head of DPKO, Alain Le Roy, who said he had never heard
about the contract. But Le Roy's fellow Under
Secretary General Sha
Zukang had explicitly praised Suntech in a UN speech, saying
“Firms
from developing countries are innovating and amassing market share in
the field of renewable energy. For instance, Suntech, a Chinese firm,
has become a leader on solar PV, based on a combination of its own
technologies with that purchased from developed countries.”
But
Suntech is not
a listed UN vendor. Inner City Press wrote a
story including this and
other questions, and on February
18 asked UN Spokeman Nesirky:
Inner
City
Press: on that Suntech contract that came up, is it confirmed
that the UN has granted such a contract? If it is through an
intermediary, is it…?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Well, two things, really. First of all, I saw the story,
the same as you, and have asked for guidance on details, which
obviously I do not have, because I don’t have details on absolutely
everything that happens in the United Nations at my fingertips. So
we have to ask to find out. That’s what we do. The same as you
ask me to find out. And so we have asked and we are waiting for a
response, which I believe will be coming quite soon.
On
the afternoon
of Saturday, February 19 Nesirky or his office sent out an e-mail to
the UN press corps entitled Note to Correspondents, but not answering
the actual questions raised and not even mentioning Suntech, the
Chinese company praised by USG Sha Zukang which publicly bragged
about getting the $80 million UN contract.
UN's Ban & Nesirky: transparency claim
now called "metaphor," Suntech not shown
From:
UN
Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Sat, Feb 19, 2011
at 1:15 PM
Subject: Note to Correspondents concerning questions on
contracts for solar panels
In
response
to questions asked at the noon briefing about contracts for
solar panels to be used by peacekeeping missions, we have the
following to say:
The
request
for solar panels was issued by the Department of Field
Support, which provides logistics for the Department of Peacekeeping
Operations.
The
solar
panels will be used to supply electricity for communications
equipment in remote locations, thereby reducing the need for
generators, fuel and re-supply. It is part of the
Secretary-General’s initiative of “Greening the Blue” and will
reduce the carbon footprint of peacekeeping operations.
The
contract
to Peak International was awarded as a result of a
competitive solicitation involving 30 companies from 14 countries.
Four
companies
submitted proposals, out of which three were considered
technically qualified by the UN subject matter experts. Peak’s bid
was selected following a competitive process and after a review by
the Headquarters Committee on Contracts.
Peak
will
coordinate other subcontractors in Germany and China and will
provide after sales support, installation and training. UN advisory
panels have no relationship whatsoever to UN procurement processes.
This
doesn't
mention Suntech, doesn't mention the UN's stated disfavoring of
intermediaries like Peak, nor the violation of UN rules by publicly
bragging about getting a UN contract. So Inner City Press
re-submitted the questions and waited more than 24 hours:
Below
are
some follow-ups on the Suntech response you sent yesterday
afternoon, also on the $100 million from the US Tax Equalization
Fund, and on the Middle East. Thank you in advance.
Suntech
follow
-up 1) yes or no, is it a violation of UN
rules/regulations/contract requirements that a vendor not draw
attention to the fact that it is a supplier to the UN? yes or no,
doesn't the UN have a rule against this, and what is the UN going to
do about it?
2)
the
original
EOI calls for manufacturers or authorized distributors.
Please state if Peak is either, and if so, which one
3)
whose
idea was it for the UN to purchase "hybrid solar-diesel
generators"? what individual in the UN decided that the UN
needed to buy these things?
4)
in
light of this quote
from Sha Zukang from 2008
Firms
from
developing countries are innovating and amassing market share in
the field of renewable energy. For instance, Suntech, a Chinese firm,
has become a leader on solar PV, based on a combination of its own
technologies with that purchased from developed countries.
In
light
of this quote, who were the competitors in the procurement
process?
On
the
TEF: 1. Yes or no, has any portion of the $100 million been
obligated yet, meaning has the UN entered into a financial commitment
for any portion of the $100 million?
2)
reiterating:
Yes or no, has the Secretary-General notified and
received approval from the General Assembly for the acceptance of and
authority to spend the $100 million from the US?
But
on Suntech,
nor on the $100 million US tax equalization fund, the UN has provided
no answers. If the past is any guide, either no answers will be
given, or a generic press release which ignores the questions. Thus
does corruption grow. Watch this site.
* * *
As
Suntech
Says
Got $80 M Contract For UN Peacekeeping, Chief
Not Aware
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee,
Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
February
17,
updated -- After a large Chinese company Suntech
Power
Holdings
announced
it has won a $80 million contract with the UN to
supply solar panels to “serve the UN's peacekeeping forces,”
Inner City Press asked head UN Peacekeeper Alain Le Roy about the
contract.
“I am not aware
of that,” Le Roy told Inner City Press.
At
the February 17
UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban
Ki-moon's spokesman
Martin Nesirky several questions about the announced contract
award:
to confirm it (Nesirky could not), and to explain what conflict of
interest safeguards there are, since Suntech's CEO Shi
Zhengrong
is a
on Ban Ki-moon's group of Advisors on Energy and Climate Change.
Inner
City
Press
asked:
how many other bidders were there? What weight was given to Shi
Zhengrong's status with Ban Ki-moon? Nesirky had no answers.
In
the hours
after the noon briefing, Inner City Press found that while Suntech is
nowhere to be found in the UN vendor's data base, under the headline
“Suntech Power wins USD80 mln PV contact from UN,” it was
mentioned that “teaming up with Peak International Trade (Tianjin),
Suntech Power has just won the bidding for the 80 million US-dollar
photovoltaic (PV) system program from the UN, Shi Zhengrong,
Suntech's Chairman and CEO, announced.”
While
Peak
International
Trade
(Tianjin) IS
listed in the UN vendor data base,
experts conclude that Peak is a Intermediary Vendor, a structure
supposedly disfavored by the UN.
Solar Panels from UN web site, Suntech as vendor and safeguards not
shown
The
UN's own
procurement manual provides that
“There
are indications that certain parties have approached prospective
vendors offering to act as intermediaries in dealings with the United
Nations. Some of these intermediaries purport to have various
arrangements with the United Nations, or to possess support
facilities within UN missions or projects which can place a vendor in
a more advantageous position in a competitive bidding exercise.
Vendors are advised that the UN prefers to deal directly with
principals to the extent possible. Vendors are therefore urged to
consult with the Procurement Division before deciding to submit
offers or negotiate contracts through any intermediary.”
So
why would the
UN allow a non-vendor run by an Advisor to Ban Ki-moon to work around
this through an intermediary and announce a $80 million contract with
the UN?
In
fact, UN
contracts contain a clause that
“PUBLICITY,
AND USE OF THE NAME, EMBLEM OR OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS:
The Contractor shall not advertise or otherwise make public for
purposes of commercial advantage or goodwill that it has a
contractual relationship with the United Nations, nor shall the
Contractor, in any manner whatsoever use the name, emblem or official
seal of the United Nations, or any abbreviation of the name of the
United Nations in connection with its business or otherwise without
the written permission the United Nations.”
So
was Ban Ki-moon
advisor Shi Zhengrong given special rights and waivers? Is has this
publicly traded company (STP.NYSE) made a mis-statement? And why
can't the UN answer? Watch this site.
Update of 6 pm - six
hours after the questions were raised, all the UN provided was a
list
of ACECC members. What about the
safeguards? What about the other questions, including those actually
raised at the noon
briefing?
From:
UN
Spokesperson
- Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Thu, Feb 17, 2011
at 6:17 PM
Subject: Your question on ACECC membership
To:
Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com
The
list
of
members is publicly available in the AGECC report, which is
posted at:
http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/shared/Documents/AGECC%20summary%20report%5B1%5D.pdf
Members
are
listed
on page 4 of the AGECC final report, which includes:
Shi
Zhengrong,
Chairman
and CEO, Suntech Power Holdings, China
What about the
other
questions,
including those raised at the noon briefing?
Inner
City
Press:
it’s on a contractor, this Suntech Power, a
Chinese-based photovoltaic company, announced that it has won a $180
million contract from the UN to provide panels, solar panels, I
guess, to peacekeeping missions. I wanted to, one, if you could
confirm it; it is a pretty big contract. Two, it doesn’t seem,
this company doesn’t seem to be listed anywhere in the UN, in the
vendor, approved vendor lists. And the CEO is apparently on the
Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change. So I
am just wondering, were there any — if that’s the case, the
final one — were there any precautions taken in the procurement? Were
there other bidders? Can we have some presentation of how the
contract was given and whether it’s appropriate, the way they
announced it, and that they are not a listed vendor?
Watch this site.
* * *
, 
