We, previously, in these columns, expressed concern at the decision by the Cabinet to overturn the Ministry of Finance's award of the contract for public sector health insurance to Life of Jamaica (LoJ). As we said then, and still believe, the call for re-tender is manifestly unfair to LoJ, which was well ahead in the most critical criterion of the bid - the cost of delivering the service.

We return to the matter, though, because of the very pertinent issues raised recently in the press by the Contractor General, Mr. Greg Christie, and their implications for governance in Jamaica.

First, there are peculiar issues surrounding the contract, in general, and the manner in which the controversy surrounding it has evolved. For a decade, the contract was awarded to Blue Cross of Jamaica without tender, a process which Mr. Christie argues was illegal. Second, a committee of public sector trade unions has, for the most part, overseen the insurance scheme, claiming ownership of it as a negotiated benefit to employees.

The trade unions have, many people would conclude, fought tooth and nail to maintain Blue Cross as the service provider. Indeed, it was the agitation of the trade unions that caused the previous administration to propose a Cabinet review of the award of the contract, upon which the new government acted a week ago.

We make no comment on the number of trade unionists who sit in the current Cabinet, or question their capacity for rational, unbiased judgement. We, however, consider to be extremely valid, Mr. Christie's call for an explanation of why the Government "ignored the considered and substantiated recommendations of two independent parliamentary commissions which were established by law to rule on such matters."

Mr. Christie, of course, was referring to his own office, which polices the enforcement of regulations relating to government pro-curement, as well as the National Contracts Commission (NCC) which reviews tender offers and rules on whether bids should be endorsed.

In this case, the Cabinet exercised its over-riding authority. And, it happened in a circumstance where the winning bid was over $68 million lower than the next best offer. Mr. Christie considers the attempt to dwell on who did best, even if only marginally in pre-qualification, to be a red herring.

Indeed, Mr. Christie, in a letter published in this newspaper on December 24, spoke in strong language about the matter, declaring himself to be "extremely concerned and disturbed" at the move by the Cabinet after the NCC's endorsement of the contract's award to LOJ "and the OCG's (Office of the Contractor General) unequivocal and strong urging that it should be so awarded."

This matter, by itself, would be of concern. But, it is of greater moment when read in the context of the announced intention by the administration to lift the $4 million threshold at which government contracts have to be independently reviewed and endorsed by the NCC.

In both cases, the administration apparently acted without prior discussion with the OCG. In a circumstance where corruption is of deep public concern and there have been promises to deal with the problem, the administration may well be fuelling cynicism.

A word to the wise, as they say, ought to be enough.