A “misleading document” submitted by former works and engineering minister Derrick Burgess to Cabinet formed the basis of a contract worth close to $1 million being awarded to Concorde Construction.

Technical officers within the Ministry of Works and Engineering had raised concerns that only Concorde, and not its rival bidders, had been made aware of a reduction in the tendering requirements surrounding the central laboratory contract. However, those concerns were left out of the acceptance document.

As a result of the reduction in requirements — namely that certain work including repairs to leaking air conditioning and ceiling would no longer be required, thereby bringing the price of the works down — Concorde appeared to be the cheapest option of all of the bidders, having adjusted its figures.

The rival bidders were not informed of the workload reduction and therefore did not make the cost adjustments. Had they been, DeCosta Construction would have emerged as the cheapest, undercutting Concorde by $7,000 at $967,000.

Commission of Inquiry lawyer Narinder Hargun quizzed Robert Horton, the former permanent secretary for works and engineering, about the course of events in 2010 as part of the inquiry, which is looking into the misuse of public funds between the years 2009 and 2012.

Mr Horton told Mr Hargun that Mr Burgess was “strongly of the view that Concorde Construction should be awarded” the contract and, while it went against standard protocol, Mr Burgess bypassed the recommendations of technical officers and took efforts to omit the conflicts arising between him and his officers in the document.

Mr Hargun suggested that “what was represented to Cabinet was not a fair representation”, to which Mr Horton agreed.

The public hearing held at St Theresa’s Church Hall yesterday afternoon heard that Lucy Chung, the technical officer for the Department of Architectural Design and Construction, in an exchange of internal e-mails, suggested that such a move could raise questions if audited and that the only proper way to proceed was to invite a rebid.

“Our present course is highly irregular as it relates to financial instructions and the tendering process,” department e-mails said.

Mr Horton told Mr Hargun during the hearing that he agreed with this position, but said that such an action did not take place.

As such, Ms Chung expressed an opinion that the Department of Architectural Design and Construction had not recommended Concorde and the department removed its title from the head of the document, replacing it with the minister’s.

Mr Horton told Mr Hargun that he and the minister argued over the issue, but Mr Burgess was “strongly of the view that Concorde should be awarded” the contract.

Mr Horton said: “The minister would state repeatedly ‘this is my document’.

“It’s the minister’s call; he is not bound to take the recommendations of the technical officers.

“It was for him to accept or reject. That was his position.”

An obligation for Cabinet to be informed of conflicts between ministers and technical officers could be borne out of the inquiry in light of these practices.

Commission chairman Sir Anthony Evans said part of the commission’s role was to make recommendations for best practice and told Mr Horton that they may draw on his experience to find a better way going forward, which Mr Horton accepted.

• Update: this article has been amended to clarify that Concorde Construction is not a Canadian company

• In the interest of treating the Commission of Inquiry much like continuing court proceedings, The Royal Gazette has taken the decision to disable comments. This is done for the protection legally of both the newspaper and our readers