Latest update June 9th, 2026 12:30 AM
Latest News
- ‘Govt. crafting law to shield Development Bank from oversight’ – Ram
- Govt. reviewing Exxon’s request to produce 945,000 barrels per day
- New opera association opens with Int’l flair
- UN report: Nearly 513,000 in T&T cannot afford a healthy meal
- Iran and Israel halt attacks but sabre-rattling continues
More profound changes are needed at GPL to turn things around
DEAR EDITOR,
I am responding to the article carried in your Sunday edition of 23 August, 2015 with headline ‘GPL’s lack of supervision of Chinese contractor led to US6M cost overruns”
This article reminds me of that old African proverb which says ‘when elephants fight, it is only the ground that suffers’. In other words when the politically strong and dominant fight, as in the case with the Board chairman and CEO, it is the small and least powerful professional staff beneath them and, I must add, the customers just outside of them who suffer.
While I was never a fan of (CEO Bharat) Dindyal’s autocratic and micromanagement style, which often than not caused dissatisfaction and a lack of creative space for professionals, it was clear for even the blind to see that there was a growing disconnect between the two gentlemen, and I may hasten to add even among board members. Again it is the staff and customers who continue to suffer from the effects of the trampling.
As the assessment suggests, Dindyal had no regard for his obligation to report on projects undertaken by the company. This was consistent with his autocratic rule where he made decisions unilaterally and without much regard for his superiors and subordinates alike.
The IDP included the building of seven new substations, upgrading of three existing substations and construction of transmission lines and a SCADA system. Had Dindyal been fulfilling his reporting obligations, then the board would have been apprised of the reason behind the time and cost increases which are contained in a settlement agreement signed by him.
The increases, which were necessary, resulted from poor project planning; specifically the inadequate definition of the project scope in the bid documents, and to a lesser extent additional works. It was the tireless effort of GPL’s in-house project implementation team that saw the completion of the project at the time it did. Certainly a laissez-faire attitude to oversight would not have achieved this. More profound changes are needed to turn things around.
Gayle Best
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.