The approval for the selection of Construtora OAS as a preferred contractor for the Solomon Hochoy Highway to Point Fortin was given by the Ministry of Works under then minister Colm Imbert.
According to the last report of the National Infrastructure Development Company (Nidco) for October 2015 and its former president Dr Carson Charles, on May 13, 2010, the Tenders Evaluation Committee recommended that Nidco enter into negotiations with Construtora OAS Ltd as a preferred respondent.
At the end of the Tender Evaluation process, the recommendation was sent to the Ministry of Works and Transport.
On May 25, 2010, one day after the general election, under then Nidco president Keisha Ince, Nidco informed OAS by letter that it was the preferred respondent.
Ince appeared on a PNM political platform for a meeting of the PNM’s Women’s League at St James during the party’s May, 2010, general election campaign.
On Friday, Minister in the Office of the Attorney General and Legal Affairs Stuart Young during a statement in Parliament, called for an investigation into the project and the highway’s main contractor Construtora OAS’s cost overruns in excess of $8 billion.
Young also said that three days before the last general election the Government “entered into a written agreement with OAS called Contract Addendum No 2, whereby they expressly recognised that OAS was bankrupt, and stated that they could invoke Clause 15.2 (e) of the FIDIC contract immediately terminating the contract.” However, despite this, they proceeded secretly to give up this right of termination and waived all claims against OAS, thus releasing and discharging OAS from any liability.
Speaking to the Sunday Guardian yesterday, Charles said the tendering was done under the previous PNM Government which did the procurement at the beginning of 2010.
“In May 24, 2010, the Government changed. When the OAS was selected there was a PNM minister in charge, that was Colm Imbert,” Charles said.
Charles said this meant that OAS would be called for negotiations as they were the lowest of three bids submitted.
OAS’s bid was $5.285 billion, China Railway Construction Corporation’s was $6.366 billion and the Italian firm GLF, $5.378 billion.
He said even though the letter was sent out on May 25, 2010, to OAS the day after the general election, the incoming administration did not feel that the project should be stopped because the Government had changed.
He said the date of the letter was not an issue.
“It wasn’t a big deal. Nidco did not go into elections and neither did Ms Ince. What I did in July 2010 was simply to pick up where she left off. There was no reason to go a different way as the procurement appeared to have been done properly.”
He said all the studies were done before consultants AECOM were recruited in 2009 and they played a role in selecting OAS.
Charles said before he left Nidco in December 2015, he provided reports on the highway to the Government in November.
He said the Government was in possession of all the pertinent data relating to the project and Young's comments were political.
“Either he does not understand what he is reading or he is being mischievous.”
Charles said contrary to what Young said, OAS was not paid $5.1 billion, but $3.482 billion up to October 2015.
He also said the project was 63 per cent complete as the initial scope of the project included design and build, and he described any contradictory information as “sensational and misleading.”
“Not one cent was paid to the contractor unless it was certified by AECOM.”
He said AECOM was satisfied with OAS’s work and that was why the percentage payment matched the percentage completion.
Charles acknowledged that Nidco could have terminated the contract under International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC).
He said, however, that the contractor had the equipment and over 1,000 workers on site and Nidco wrote to them regarding the contract ending in May 2016.
“Instead, we said, we want you to finish in May 2016 and we would give the rest of the work to local contractors.”
He said OAS would not have been paid for work they had not completed.
“You can’t get paid for what you didn’t do. We would have paid the local contractors.”
He said the reason for the delay in the completion of the project stemmed from the government’s inability to hand over two sites, one in La Brea, which involved negotiations with oil giant BP.
The other site was Penal to Mon Desir, which was delayed due to protest by the Wayne Kublalsingh-led Highway Re-Route Movement..
At the end of the Tender Evaluation process, the recommendation was sent to the Ministry of Works and Transport.
On May 25, 2010, one day after the general election, under then Nidco president Keisha Ince, Nidco informed OAS by letter that it was the preferred respondent.
Ince appeared on a PNM political platform for a meeting of the PNM’s Women’s League at St James during the party’s May, 2010, general election campaign.
On Friday, Minister in the Office of the Attorney General and Legal Affairs Stuart Young during a statement in Parliament, called for an investigation into the project and the highway’s main contractor Construtora OAS’s cost overruns in excess of $8 billion.
Young also said that three days before the last general election the Government “entered into a written agreement with OAS called Contract Addendum No 2, whereby they expressly recognised that OAS was bankrupt, and stated that they could invoke Clause 15.2 (e) of the FIDIC contract immediately terminating the contract.” However, despite this, they proceeded secretly to give up this right of termination and waived all claims against OAS, thus releasing and discharging OAS from any liability.
Speaking to the Sunday Guardian yesterday, Charles said the tendering was done under the previous PNM Government which did the procurement at the beginning of 2010.
“In May 24, 2010, the Government changed. When the OAS was selected there was a PNM minister in charge, that was Colm Imbert,” Charles said.
Charles said this meant that OAS would be called for negotiations as they were the lowest of three bids submitted.
OAS’s bid was $5.285 billion, China Railway Construction Corporation’s was $6.366 billion and the Italian firm GLF, $5.378 billion.
He said even though the letter was sent out on May 25, 2010, to OAS the day after the general election, the incoming administration did not feel that the project should be stopped because the Government had changed.
He said the date of the letter was not an issue.
“It wasn’t a big deal. Nidco did not go into elections and neither did Ms Ince. What I did in July 2010 was simply to pick up where she left off. There was no reason to go a different way as the procurement appeared to have been done properly.”
He said all the studies were done before consultants AECOM were recruited in 2009 and they played a role in selecting OAS.
Charles said before he left Nidco in December 2015, he provided reports on the highway to the Government in November.
He said the Government was in possession of all the pertinent data relating to the project and Young's comments were political.
“Either he does not understand what he is reading or he is being mischievous.”
Charles said contrary to what Young said, OAS was not paid $5.1 billion, but $3.482 billion up to October 2015.
He also said the project was 63 per cent complete as the initial scope of the project included design and build, and he described any contradictory information as “sensational and misleading.”
“Not one cent was paid to the contractor unless it was certified by AECOM.”
He said AECOM was satisfied with OAS’s work and that was why the percentage payment matched the percentage completion.
Charles acknowledged that Nidco could have terminated the contract under International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC).
He said, however, that the contractor had the equipment and over 1,000 workers on site and Nidco wrote to them regarding the contract ending in May 2016.
“Instead, we said, we want you to finish in May 2016 and we would give the rest of the work to local contractors.”
He said OAS would not have been paid for work they had not completed.
“You can’t get paid for what you didn’t do. We would have paid the local contractors.”
He said the reason for the delay in the completion of the project stemmed from the government’s inability to hand over two sites, one in La Brea, which involved negotiations with oil giant BP.
The other site was Penal to Mon Desir, which was delayed due to protest by the Wayne Kublalsingh-led Highway Re-Route Movement.
SURUJ: MONEY ADVANCED TO CONTRACTOR INSURED
Former minister of Works and Infrastructure and Opposition MP Dr Surujrattan Rambachan said the $296 million advanced to OAS, which was still to be deducted, was completely insured and the Government had nothing to worry about.
He said on the matter of obligations OAS had to local contractors and workers, Nidco had certain monies to pay to OAS called retention money and performance bonds amounting to US$80 million.
Rambachan said Nidco can withhold this sum in negotiations with OAS which can be used to pay contractors and workers who were owed money. He said $5.1 billion had been spent overall on the project and there was still $2.4 billion dollars remaining in the budget to finish the project.
Rambachan said restarting the shut down project meant additional money.
He said what they should have done instead was to do an audit but let the project continue, let the workers be employed and the project would have been finished this year.
Rambachan said all payments to OAS were certified by AECOM even in the determination of the costs for doing the rest of the highway by local contractors.
He said Young can proceed with his investigation, but the Government was trying to deflect from its own internal party problems.
Calls to Rodrigo Ventura, OAS country superintendent, were not returned.
Calls to Colm Imbert’s cell phone went unanswered.