A construction company has lost its $400 million lawsuit against the National Infrastructure Development Company (Nidco) over its failed bid for a proposed interchange at the Churchill-Roosevelt Highway, Curepe.
Delivering an oral judgment in the Port-of-Spain High Court yesterday, Justice Vasheist Kokaram upheld a preliminary application from Nidco’s attorney, Kelvin Ramkisson, calling for the lawsuit from Lutchmeesingh’s Transport Contractors Limited to be struck out.
The company had filed the claim in April last year, two months after Nidco terminated its negotiations with it over the price it had tendered for the project.
Nidco issued the tender on October 28, 2014, in which it set the conditions for the selection of the contractor for the project.
The two main considerations cited by Nidco in the selection process were costs for construction and the capability of potential construction firms to complete the mega project.
The company had claimed Nidco failed to give reasons for its decision which would have allowed it to provide a revised offer. It was seeking damages for wasted expenditure incurred in participating in the tendering process and for loss of an opportunity to obtain a profitable contract.
Ramkisson, in his application, pointed to the terms of Nidco’s Invitation to Tender (ITT) which provided the company with the option of protesting against Nidco and taking its dispute to arbitration, both facilities which were not used by it before initiating the lawsuit.
Ramkisson also disputed that the ITT constituted a binding contract between Nidco and the company as he said that would only be so if all the terms of the ITT had been followed and a subsequent contract was executed between the parties for the project.
Ramkisson also challenged the company’s claim his client failed to give reasons for its decision as he said the ITT did not contain that provision and that the reasons would have been obvious to the company as it was engaged in protracted negotiations over the price quoted for the project before discussions were terminated.
As part of his decision, Kokaram ordered the company to pay Nidco’s legal costs for defending the claim.
Since its inception the tendering process for the project was mired in controversy as there was a war of words between former junior minister in the Ministry of Works and Infrastructure, Stacy Roopnarine, and her former boss Dr Suruj Rambachan over Nidco’s handling of the tender process.
Despite reports in June last year the project was awarded jointly to two companies, among them Luchmeesingh’s, no contract has been agreed.
Nidco was also represented by Senior Counsel Dr Claude Denbow while British Queen’s Counsel Simon Hughes, Om Lalla, Jessica Harragin and Dereck Balliram represented the company.