Dear Editor,
I write to return to your coverage on various pump station contracts under the aegis of NDIA and the Ministry of Agriculture, as raised by Ganesh Mahipaul, MP and SN, and responded to by the NDIA releases of October 18 last. A feature of this administration, as well as the previous, is that very little in infrastructure is transparent. Those interested need to observe what is said in relevant government answers and releases as well as carefully note points on which said answers are silent, in order to infer a picture. Now that the current opposition, with parts of the media, are productively pressing NDIA (and the NPTAB) in some way, I will make comments on the termination of the almost $1B contract at Black Bush Polder.
After a visit to the location Mr. Mahipaul raised questions about corrosion of construction steel languishing on site, being wasteful of taxpayers’ money. NDIA responded that this contract was terminated for “poor quality and performance of works”, that the project will be retendered and that materials are “being moved to a safe location”. We have to assume all pre-conditions for an NDIA termination, but must be mindful of the contractor’s right to challenge and to present its own case. From what NDIA has said the project was terminated on September 23 last. From that date, the informal license of the contractor to possession of the site is revoked and NDIA takes over certain responsibilities with their attendant costs, previously that of the terminated contractor: broadly these are, responsibility for safety of the public including for small children who might wander onto the site; security for the project site against theft and vandalism; and protection of the works itself against deterioration.
The MP raised his concern on the latter, in regard to the steel. Notwithstanding NDIA’s response, the MP must keep up demands for information of this kind, including the cost of moving any materials elsewhere, since until the new contractor is physically on site, the mentioned items and costs are necessarily incurred, and under its governance role, NDIA now ought to assign responsibility for these items, the costs of which will mount over time. Questions could include: what is the weekly or monthly cost for these recurrent items? Is the movement of materials from the site under the surveillance of an auditor? Still on the matter of governance, once termination is made, there should be no further payment to the terminated contractor, until after a new contractor completes all work. Even valid payment certificates not yet disbursed to the terminated contractor must be stopped.
In this regard, one of the releases stated “…a Project Completion Certificate would have been issued by the engineer for works completed and materials on site.” Editor, this statement is at best contradictory and raises a Red Flag as to if money was paid to the terminated contractor at this juncture. The MoA and NDIA themselves state that the project is not completed, only 14%; would the ‘experienced engineer’ responsible for the completion certificate be asked to give answers now – or must we all await his or her appearance before the Public Accounts Committee, in say five years’ time? The same release continues, “Therefore, the contractor would only be paid for works that were satisfactorily completed and materials on site as is the case when there is a fundamental breach of contract.” This statement compounds my dismay.
As stated above, if there is a “fundamental breach” resulting in termination there must be no payment until the works are completed by a new contractor, all extra incurred costs are totaled as consequential losses of NDIA, and the terminated contractor may well owe a debt to taxpayers. Prompt answers are particularly due from the Authority in regard to bonds. The release states “…at the time of termination, the advance mobilization and performance bonds were still active. As such, monies can be recouped.” Editor, these bonds have use-by dates and hence must be demanded immediately after default. Monies must be recouped – now – before the bonds expire. Question: what are the expiry dates of the bonds, and have they been called in? SN has posed the question of what would be the cost of re-tendering, to which some answers can be fielded in due course. In the meantime, NDIA has boldly stated it will provide information “… as it relates to transparency and accountability of its projects”; hopefully the above will help stimulate further questions.
Sincerely,
Donald Rodney
