This newspaper’s report on Monday about the retrofitting of lights in Global House is, regrettably, just the latest example of the utter failure of Government to look after the public’s money. Compared to the multimillion dollar excesses on some Government projects, this episode may seem relatively minor. But it is significant for a number of reasons.Briefly, what happened was this. A company named ETM made a proposal to Government to replace the neon lights in Government’s Global House offices with LED lights, which use less energy and are considered to be more environmentally friendly.The company was asked to provide a detailed analysis of the proposal. This was not done to the satisfaction of the Works Ministry’s technical officers. In particular, the company did not provide a cost-benefit analysis. Further, tests conducted by the Ministry itself found that the lighting levels proposed were poor and did not meet the necessary standard. Therefore, they recommended that no contract be given.Nonetheless, the report provided to The Royal Gazette said: “In the spring of 2009 a decision was made to proceed.”Then, in the government press release made in response to The Royal Gazette’s inquiries, the following statement was made: “It was determined that this work should be expedited. Consequently, the services were sole sourced: only ETM was invited to provide a cost for these services.”Naturally, these statements beg more questions than they answer. Who made the decisions? Based on the report it was not the technical officers who were opposed to the proposal in the first place. And who would have the power to override the requirement in Financial Regulations that all projects over $50,000 must be put out to a general tender?According to the report, it later turned out that the lights did not meet Government’s own planning regulations and there was no indication of whether they had been manufactured to accepted safety standards. In addition, the scale of the retrofitting was such that it should have had planning approval. But this was not sought.There were immediate complaints from the users of the offices, and according to Government’s statement, ETM then replaced the lights. It is not clear if money was lost on this project. But what was lost was Government’s credibility, and in many ways, this is worse.First, the technical officers’ recommendations, which seemed sensible, were ignored by more senior officials in the Ministry, seemingly without any rationale.Second, top officials then overrode Government policies on tendering. It was stated that this was because the work needed to be expedited. But there was no apparent urgency, especially since the Ministry’s own technical officers had not identified the cost savings to be made.Third, the equipment provided failed to meet Government’s own standards for safety. Fourth, Government’s own planning regulations were ignored. If Government won’t follow its own rules, why should anyone else?When Premier Paula Cox took office in October, 2010, she promised cleaner Government and she put in place measures to ensure proper procedures were in place and followed.But the evidence from relatively small projects like this, to much larger capital projects, suggests that the whole Government procurement procedure in recent years was completely broken. Only a formal Commission of Inquiry, appointed by the Governor and with full powers of investigation will now suffice to probe Government’s contracting and use of consultants in recent years.