Setting the record straight

Dec 06, 2015 AFC Column, Features / Columnists

---

By Khemraj Ramjattan
Leader of the AFC; Minister of Public Security

The key players within the PPP who masterminded the Specialty Hospital award to Surendra Engineering

are at it again. They are masters of confusion, obfuscation, and deception. Truth and honesty had abandoned them a long time ago. Remember how the whole nation was tricked by the chief of their tribe into believing that there was a marriage when there was none.
Personally, I want to clear the air once again and state that sometime in mid-August 2012, I was approached by a representative of Fedders Lloyd here in Guyana who was furious at the machinations of the then Government of Guyana in awarding the approximately $18 million US contract to build the Specialty Hospital to Surendra Engineering.
The representative indicated that he was directed to me by then Indian High Commissioner Mr. Puran Mal Meena, who had told him that I am an “anti-corruption crusader” who can help. Of course I picked up the phone and verified with Mr. Meena that indeed the vexed man in front of me was the representative from Fedders Lloyd; that Fedders Lloyd was indeed a most prominent Indian construction company which had built scores of specialty hospitals worldwide, and that the Company may have lost out on the contract because of corruption and fraud by the procurement authority and the Government of Guyana.
This is all that it sometimes take to motivate the politician in me to shine sunlight on PPP’s corrupt projects. When it gets as big as this, I take it on, because it will put me in a special position of political prominence. I want to remind that money, though important, is not the exclusive motivator for me in representing someone aggrieved or violated.
And so I proceeded to make heavy weather concerning the corruption of the PPP Government on this Specialty Hospital. I was given all information and documentation by Fedders Lloyd. Further, I even contacted Kirti Azad, a Lok Sabha, anti-corruption crusader. He, by the way, was a player in that winning Indian World Cup team of 1983. Kirti was instrumental in directing me to the Indian Exim Bank to make complaints there on behalf of the company and on behalf of the Opposition; and, to the Anti-Corruption Committee in the Lok Sabha of India.
I enjoyed this exciting mission, and the publicity the issue got. As AFC leader, I got to know some sordid facts about the people involved in this transaction, and how their families benefitted from the corrupt company’s lavish spending on them of that $4 million US it was advanced. And even how the Management Contract for the Specialty Hospital was signed up long before the construction contract was inked.
On this latter issue, Jagdeo and his best friend (we all know who that is) featured heavily. To now hear Jagdeo announce that the MOU with Fedders Lloyd reeks of corruption turns my stomach.
There are a couple of points which should be addressed, lest the unsuspecting be corrupted by the PPP’s propaganda.
Firstly, the impression is being given that there was a disqualification of Fedders Lloyd’s bid. The garrulous Anil Nandlall is today hooked onto this. He obviously has a bad memory. He says the disqualification was due to the fact that the company had sent in a bid price that had a 23% discount.
Indeed this was so. And the effect of this was to make that Company’s bid $17.6 million US as against $18.1 million US for Surendra Engineering. But Anil Nandlall and his team wanted to exclude the best bidder by the outrageously spurious argument that this discount meant it had sent in two prices.
I corrected this misconstruction when it was being given publicity in August 2012, by pointing out that there were specific rules in the Bid documents which provided for discounts, namely, paragraph 20.3 of the Instructions to Bidders. This was primarily what caused Dr. Roger Luncheon to announce two weeks after, that the contract will be re-assessed and re-examined – see Stabroek News of 5th September, 2012.
Of course nothing came out of this re-assessment, because it was a done deal for Surendra Engineering and no one else. My query of Luncheon as to why no re-assessment, led to his private remark: “Banna, dis thing got mystic proportions”. I knew what he meant.
The second point to be addressed is the insinuation that there is something disturbing about giving Fedders Lloyd an MOU. I notice even my good friend Anand Goolsarran saying that the contract ought to have been re-tendered. I certainly will respect his view. However, like Ralph Ramkarran, I have a different view and it ought to be respected.
The contract’s general conditions, which were given to every bidder so as to inform them as to what they possibly will enter into, makes provision for the Government of Guyana, called the Employer therein, to terminate the contract if any corrupt or fraudulent practice is discovered as carried out  by the Contractor.
Well we all know now that massive fraud was found on the Contractor’s part, and that the PPP Government sued Surendra Engineering and got remedies of termination and  damages, after 24% of the contract monies, some $4 million US, were disbursed to it. The Company’s officers all ran away from Guyana and dissolved the Company in UAE.
What the Employer under the contract’s general conditions can do upon such a termination is very explicit and without any ambiguity. Anil Nandlall may not have looked carefully for this. Paragraph 42.2.4 says that upon such a termination: “The Employer may enter the site, expel the Contractor and complete the facilities itself or by employing any third party.”
This provision is what applies. And this method accords with best practice on any termination, especially when work has commenced and money to the tune of approximately 25% is spent on an incomplete project, as happened here.
Just to illustrate it better. Suppose Surendra Engineering had done the construction up to say 75% and then its fraud was discovered. Would it be feasible for an Employer, upon termination at this stage, to go and re-tender the remaining 25% of work for completion?
Logically work it further downwards, say 50% or even 25% completion and then fraud is found. Must there be a re-tendering process? I know of no law which provides here that re-tendering has to be mandatory. Nor do I know of any reasoning which says that if such re-tendering is not done, but a good third party completes the work, that means that the completion process “reeks of corruption”!
These unfortunately dire circumstances, caused by the corrupt former administration, require that we, APNU/AFC, be practical and prudent.
A third point, which is but an extension of the second, is this. The quality of a Fedders Lloyd doing the completion job for $14 million US is a win for this Administration on all counts. But there is another win which evolved out of this process and that is another $14 million US for the three (3) primary health care facilities at Suddie, Bartica and West Demerara.
The Indian Government was extremely generous to the Guyanese people when, in response to our Government requesting that the balance of the contract value left on the Specialty Hospital be put towards these three hospitals, it said we will have both… monies for the Specialty Hospital and monies for the three primary health care facilities.
So the PPP Government co-authored a theft of $4 million US; whereas, the APNU/AFC Government procured $28 million US for improvement in our health sector. Why then should we unwisely start a process of self-flagellation? Why this crabs-in-a-barrel exhibition?
My conduct in doing all I have done on this matter, and even right up to writing this piece, which will be read negatively and adverse to me, is what I will do all over again if the opportunity arises. My support during this time for Fedders Lloyd flowed from my disgust at the fraud and corruption of the PPP Government and Surendra Engineering; and, the fearlessness of Fedders Lloyd to give publicity of this shameless scheme right up to the end. It was a support that was non-pecuniary, no lucre having ever been sought.
Consequently, I do not see anything disturbing as the Sunday Stabroek recently editoralised. I was very disappointed by that remark. But this is the new occupational hazard I have to live with. I would like others to see that what was done here was   correcting of a wrong committed on both the Guyanese people and on a decent Indian Company.

---

---