The Joint Consultative Council (JCC) for the construction sector is raising questions about contracts awarded to Namalco and Kallco, two local construction companies accused of “cartel behaviour” in the award of contracts by the Estate Management Development Company (EMBD) and it wants the State and Nidco to “revisit these awards.”
In its first public comment on the award of the $400 million dollar contract to Kallco for the Churchill- Roosevelt Highway Extension, the JCC said the contract “requires urgent explanation.”
It also raised questions about a newspaper report that a $436 million dollar contract was awarded to Namalco by Nidco for the completion of the Point Fortin Highway.
That report has been publicly dismissed by Nidco which issued a statement to the media indicating that tenders for the completion of the extension of the highway are still open and that it remained confident that its procurement process is competitive and transparent.
But the JCC, in a statement yesterday, said, “It is public knowledge that the State has initiated legal action against five companies,” among whom are Namalco and Kallco, who have been named for alleged “cartel behaviour.”
According to the JCC, this raises the question “is it that the legal arm of the state is oblivious of what the implementation arm is doing?”
The JCC said it would like to believe that the Attorney General would not commit “limited State resources by proceeding with litigation in the courts without tangible and compelling evidence.”
In these circumstances it said the issue of “following due process,” in making these awards by Nidco “cannot be acceptable to concerned citizens.”
In the case of Kallco, the JCC said the Maracas contract was terminated well before completion and Nidco was given the responsibility to manage the completion of that project, utilising other contractors.
It said it was left to wonder how the company got the contract which was “twice as large” and whether it can “deliver value for money.”
The JCC is now calling on Nidco to make public the performance ratings of both companies and the reasons for the termination of the Maracas Contract in the interest of “transparency and equity.”
Efforts to contact Nidco Chairman Herbert George were futile.
But in September when concerns were first raised about the Kallco contract George told the T&TGuardian that Nidco could not “blacklist Kallco” because there was no “evidence or reason” to suggest that the company should not tender for government jobs.
He assured that Nidco will monitor the project “zealously,” and if Kallco fails to deliver there are clauses in the contract which allow Nidco to terminate it.
The JCC said it was also concerned that the state “can find funds to commence new projects of this magnitude,” without making arrangements to pay contractors and consultants for work “completed many months/years ago,” and which was “certified and audited by the present government.”
It has appealed to the Minister of Finance to “properly recognise the state’s indebtedness and release funds to all state companies that have long standing overdue payments to contractors and consultants.”
BACKGROUND:
On October 17th Minister in the Office of the Attorney General Stuart Young announced that the government through the EMBD had filed claims in the high court against five contractors, Namalco, Kallco, TN Ramnauth and Company Limited, Mootilal Ramhit and Sons Contracting Limited and Fides Limited.
After eighteen months of analysis of the various work sites he said they had found “the work which they claimed to have been done and they had bene paid for doing was not performed.”