At Rwanda Genocide Panel, UN Official Cheng-Hopkins Names France, But No Follow-Up or Press Q at IPI

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 22 -- When a panel on "Twenty Years after the Genocide: What are the Lessons Learned from Rwanda?" was scheduled across First Avenue from the UN on April 22, the dispute earlier in the month between Rwanda and France, about the latter's responsibility, seemed sure to come up.

  Inner City Press RSPV-ed to the International Peace Institute and watched the opening statements by webcast (while simultaneously live-tweeting the US State Department's daily briefing). Before the Q&A segment, before the moderator asked people to raise hands for questions, Inner City Press arrived, then indicated that it had a question. (Two, actually, including the April 3, 2014 cable from the UN in Burundi about the government arming its youth wing that Inner City Press published but on which the UN spokesperson has allowed but declined to answer questions.)

  The first round went to insiders, including the chief of UN Peacebuilding Judy Cheng-Hopkins who to her credit asked about Jeune Afrique quoting a French soldier that he was ordered to fight with the RFP outside Kigali, and to help the genocidaires themselves.

  It seemed this required an answer from the panel. But the only answer was about the United States, that it was gun-shy after Somalia and "Bush" said the US had no interest in the country. Actually, it was under Bill Clinton.

  But the IPI moderator next called on people who raised their hands long after Inner City Press, including another UN staff member. The time expired, and the moderator said Inner City Press could come up front and ask a question one on one. Well, no. The UN Host Country Com'te began meeting on the US's denial of Iran's ambassador-nominee's visa.

  Inner City Press has RSVP-ed for a number of other upcoming IPI events. At the last one it attended, panelist Herve Ladsous of France, the head of UN Peacekeeping, answered Inner City Press' question on when UN Peacekeeping will go after the Hutu FDLR militia by saying, "Mister, I never answer your questions." Watch this site.

   

At UN, Skanska Worked Before New $66.8M Contract, Which It Calls $65M, Follow the Money

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 5 -- How does the UN choose to whom to pay money, and how much to pay?

Amid hoopla at the UN about its UMOJA computer system upgrade in Lebanon, Inner City Press reported on whistleblowers' complaints that PriceWaterhouseCoopers got contract after contract without things ever going out to bid again.

  On July 1 when UMOJA launched in Lebanon, Inner City Press began to ask about UMOJA and this at the noon briefing, but this was disallowed despite the brevity of the noon briefing.

But on July 2, Inner City Press managed to ask about another strange contract:

Deputy Spokesperson: Matthew, last question?

Inner City Press: I got a couple on Sudan; one about money. Which do you…?

Deputy Spokesperson: Money.

Inner City Press: All right. Skanska announced today and put out a press release that they have been awarded $65 million contract for the renovation of the General Assembly Building. But the timing seemed strange, because it’s already been fenced off and people thought that they’d already been given this whole contract. So is there some way to know, did they release a second contract to Skanska and was it done competitively? And if it wasn’t done competitively, why wait until now that it is already fenced off? Isn’t Skanska already working on the building?

Deputy Spokesperson: We’ll have to find out for you, Matthew; I don’t have that information with me.

  It took a couple of days, but an answer did come in today, unlike on the UN Mine Action Service chief in Somalia David Bax sharing information with US intelligence, or which Congolese Army units Herve Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping supports:

Subject: Your question (from 2 July) on Skanska
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 12:49 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

The United Nations, on 2 July 2013, signed a contract for a portion of the renovation of the General Assembly Building with Skanska USA Building Inc. The value of the contract is $66.8 million. (Please note that the news release you based your questions on quoted $65 million as the value of the contract. That number is not correct.)

The United Nations selected Skanska USA Building Inc. as Construction Manager for the Capital Master Plan in July 2007 in a competitive bidding process. For each phase of the renovation of the UN Headquarters the UN negotiates separate guaranteed maximum price contracts with the Construction Manager. The UN has the option to negotiate contracts with other construction companies, if it disagrees with Skanska’s pricing.

The General Assembly Building was closed for construction on 31 May 2013. Work performed by Skanska before the signing of the contract was authorized in the form of task orders, which was funded outside of this guaranteed maximum price contract.

  This seems to be the way PriceWaterhouseCoopers kept getting UMOJA contracts -- the UN could have gone back to market but said it wasn't required to. What triggers actual competition? Tellingly, Skanska began to work and get paid before the new contract was agreed to.

Here, Skanka's own press release says $65 million; the UN says $66.8 million. What's $1.8 million between friends? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

  

On UN Syria Study, No Request for Proposals As Benetech Told ICP

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 9 -- Among the questions that have arisen about Benetech's study of deaths in Syria for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has been one raised by Inner City Press (and some Security Council diplomats) since the day of the launch.

  How did OHCHR selected Benetech, which lists funding from the US State Department and National Endowment for Democracy? And was there a Request for Proposals or RFP, as Benetech has claimed?

 The answer to the latter, if there was an RFP, turns out to be "no."

While understandably busy fielding questions from broadcasters, OHCHR spokesman Rupert Colville did answer Inner City Press' question on how much Benetech was paid: $25,000.

But Patrick Ball of Benetech had told Inner City Press that"yes there was an RFP for this project. For the specific selection mechanism, you should contact OHCHR who can provide the details." 

  So Inner City Press did ask OHCHR, respectfully but repeatedly.

   And today Colville has responded to Inner City Press' questions about the selection / Request for Proposals process with this:

From: Rupert Colville [OHCHR spokesperson]
Date: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: Q re Syria study, Benetech & its funders, how chosen, update on Minova / HRDDP
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com

Dear Matthew,

Because of the need for confidentiality and the highly specialized nature of this contract -- there are only a very few organizations qualified (and properly equipped) to do this type of work -- we did not issue an RFP as such. Instead, as permitted by the rules in exceptional cases such as this, we approached three organizations working in this field. Of the three, only one -- the Benetech Human Rights Program -- was both available in the required time-frame and able to demonstrate the necessary experience and expertise.

The criteria were experience, expertise and credibility -- and, of course, availability. The individuals working in the Benetech Program have considerable experience and expertise in this type of work, and are well known to the UN, having worked on several important projects in the past. As I stated in an earlier email, we agreed a sum of 25,000 US dollars (which is a modest sum given the quantity of work that Benetech undertook during the five months it took to complete a study of considerable complexity, and which continued to evolve as it went along -- e.g. because of additional lists becoming available late on in the process). We have no concerns about their independence. Nor do we have concerns about the fact that Benetech has other sources of funding: that is quite normal for most non-profit organizations and NGOs with whom we, and many other UN organizations, work on a regular basis.

I hope this puts to rest your concerns.

Best regards,

Rupert [Colville, Spokesperson / Head of Media, OHCHR]

  We appreciate the answer, but must note that Patrick Ball's response that there was an RFP is no longer consistent. 

  Nor do we understand why, given that public money was used, the name of the other two organizations OHCHR decided to approach is not being made public.

  How can the public assess the use of money, and the price arrived at, without this information? 

  How can the comparative credibility / independence of the three firms be assessed by the public? Particularly when Benetech cites an "anonmyous" funder? Click here for that.

   While polite and more elaborated, the answer may still smack too much of "just trust us" for a public institution. It is appreciated, but watch this site.

For Syria Study, OHCHR Paid Benetech $25,000 But Selection Process Not Yet Disclosed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 4 -- After the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights announced on January 2 that 60,000 people have been killed in Syria, Inner City Press asked OHCHR and its contractor Benetech how Benetech had been selected, and how much it got paid.

  The how-much we can now report, answered by OHCHR: $25,000. But how was Benetech picked?

  One basis for the question was Benetech's human rights project's listed funders, including the US State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy.

  With all due respect, Inner City Press has asked OHCHR if "perceived independence (including from funding by the foreign ministries of P5 countries with a strong position on Syria) played a role in the assessment and selection" of Benetech, and how exactly Benetech was selected, from among how many bidders?

  Benetech itself had told Inner City Press, "Yes, there was an RFP for this project. For the specific selection mechanism, you should contact OHCHR who can provide the details."

   Understanding that OHCHR's hardworking spokesperson was busy with larger if not more critical media, Inner City Press waited some hours and then published a story, which was picked up in the UK Guardian. When the next day January 3 OHCHR did respond, this Inner City Press questioning, quoted in the Guardian, was characterized as "casting aspersions."

  Inner City Press replied that it's not " casting aspersions to ask questions about how the contractor was selected, and to note who the contractor's other funders are... To listen to the doubts of some Security Council members and try to get to the bottom of how the selection of contractor was made is, I think, journalism, maybe more so than just slavishly reporting what a UN agency is saying."

   OHCHR has for now said "We agreed to pay 25,000 dollars for the work, and yes due procedure was followed." 

  But what procedure is that?  Many readers have written in; hence this interim story. 

  Inner City Press has asked, "Is the Request for Proposals public? How many companies responded? What criteria were used?" We anticipate answers, despite being told in advance it is a waste of time, on Monday, January 7. Watch this site.