-poll
(Trinidad Express) In Sep-tember 2008, the Government appointed a Commission of Enquiry under the chairmanship of Prof John Uff to examine the operations of the Public Sector Construction Industry and the procurement regime with particular reference to the Urban Development Corporation (UDeCOTT), the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) and the Cleaver Heights Housing Project.
The proceedings of the Enquiry attracted a great deal of interest from the general public. Seventy-six per cent in the Selwyn Ryan poll said they followed the proceedings of the Commission either ’very closely’ (19 per cent), ’somewhat closely’ (19 per cent), or ’occasionally’ (38 per cent). Twenty-two per cent however paid no attention to the activities of the Commission.
During the Enquiry, much was revealed about the public sector construction industry, and about how contracts for the construction of certain mega projects were allocated and to whom. Much of what was alleged was disturbing to the proverbial ’man on the street’. Many were curious about the relationship between the Prime Minister, The Ministry of Planning, the Minister of Works and Mr Calder Hart, the chairman of UDeCOTT.
When asked whether what they read or heard during the public proceedings of the Enquiry had changed their opinions about the Prime Minister for better, worse, or not at all, 39 percent indicated that their views remained much the same. Five per cent said their views had changed for the better. Forty-four per cent however said that their views of the Prime Minister had changed for the ’worse’. One assumes that these respondents were disturbed by and suspicious of the apparent closeness of the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the board of UDeCOTT. The Prime Minister had in fact made it clear that UDeCOTT was the Government’s agency for constructing its high profile projects, that he was pleased with the work that UDeCOTT was doing, that all was well, and that he was not going to be part of any witch-hunt against the Corporation, this at a time when allegations were being openly made about cronyism in the awarding of contracts to particular Malaysian Companies.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Works alleged that there was a cartel in the construction industry which rigged contract bids, and that these bids were invariably higher than those from foreign firms. It was also alleged that cost overruns and delayed completion dates were endemic and that these outcomes were the by-product of greed and systemic inefficiency.
Spokesmen of the industry vigorously denied these allegations. Majority opinion endorsed the Government’s claims about a cartel. Thirty-six per cent ’agreed’ with the Government, and 29 per cent did so ’strongly’, an aggregate of 65 per cent. Eleven per cent ’disagreed’ and two per cent did so strongly. Fifteen per cent were unable to decide, while eight per cent refused to say.
The Prime Minister openly declared that the Govern-ment’s policy was to award more contracts for mega-projects to Chinese and Malay-sian firms. It was said that their bids were lower than those offered by local firms and that projects handled by the Asians were completed within time and budget. Local contractors contested these claims and argued that there were many reasons, (including bribery, bid rigging, and support from their state agencies), why foreign firms appeared to do better.
Thirty four per cent endorsed the position taken by the Government while 49 per cent averred that the Government was not justified in its determination to favour foreign firms. Seven per cent were unable to make up their minds.
When the question was rephrased to include other options, the responses differed somewhat. Forty per cent were of the view that the contractor with the best bid and track record should be favoured. Twelve per cent felt that foreign firms should be preferred as a matter of principle., while forty percent believed that local firms should be favoured since they employ local labour and management and moreover, had to be given opportunities to gain experience to grow and improve.
There were allegations and veiled hints that there were ’irregularities’, cronyism and possibly corruption in some of the contracts awarded by UDeCOTT. The public mind clearly believes that there is truth in these allegations. As many as 78 per cent agreed or agreed strongly that there was ’lots of corruption’ in the award of public sector contracts. Only seven per cent disagreed or disagreed strongly. Many also believe that certain UDeCOTT personnel benefitted financially from the award of contracts. Seventy-five percent were of this view. Only four per cent thought otherwise.
