Nine reasons and more why the Speciality Hospital should be retendered

Dec 09, 2015 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
A lot have been said about the above project and the process of awarding the contract. This project should also be reviewed for feasibility/ long term survival cost to the nation and who will be the beneficiaries in a poor nation, before proceeding. This project should be retendered for the following reasons:
1) The bids were evaluated, the contract was awarded to the No 1 ranked contractor,  Surendra Engineering, who accepted the award. The bid bond was returned to all contractors. The process is over, done, done, as long as the bid bond was returned. For any reason/s the project must be retendered.
2) The clause to go to the second ranked bidder, cease to apply, due to one above. For whatever reason if the first contractor cease to complete the job, the project will now be retendered and awarded to a third party. Obviously. the third party statement , in contract law, is very important for the government and any client. The third party statement means that if the contractor signed to that, and the client contract was terminated, for unjust cause as found by a court of law, the contractor cannot make claim for loss of profits for the entire project, whether he does or third party does it. It has nothing and no bearing to retendering.
3) No responsible financial institution will give a performance bond to a contractor for a bid that is 3 years old, especially when the bid was the lowest. There is something smelling very fishy here.
4) Minister Ramjattan was associated with this project during the bidding/evaluation process, directly or indirectly, hence, it appears to be a conflict of interest. Mr Ramjattan, as a leader, a coalition partner of the government, a man like myself who stood against corruption on our own government, fought for transparency and accountability, for his own interest and being politically correct, must advise the Government  through the President/Cabinet to retender. Was the cabinet not involved in this strange inventive MOU?
5) The design is incomplete according to the media. Why retender until all designs are complete and all necessary implements/equipments/accessories etc are clearly stated in the scope of works/Bill of quantities. Sometimes corrupt officials, deliberately encourage incomplete designs to allow for variations and extra works, to be priced highly for kick backs, like  $600,000 /toilets.
6) If the scope of work is reduced and the public is being misled that there is only adjustment for works completed by the previous contractor, then this can be construed as possible corruption. Retender to remove the doubt.
7) Not to tender the project, due to time as stated, is misleading and sending a suspicious message to the public. The great majority of Guyanese is poor, depends on relative abroad to survive and will not afford this service. The people who can afford this service is a negligible part of the population and can go abroad in the meantime for specialize treatment.
8) An MOU and to start the work at the same time, baffles me as a Contract Administrator. Is an MOU a contract?
9) Dr Jagdeo is probably right that the process is corrupt. He knows what he is talking about. It is his infrastructure, his hand-picked and well trained personnel, Ministry of Finance/GRA/NICIL, retained by the coalition are dealing with this project.
Notwithstanding any of the above, and since there is no monetary gain for anyone in the system, why not retender to remove the doubt of transparency and please the people who voted for you? Be politically correct. We condemned the last government for this very secret and half baked information to the public. Let the public see the original contracts and the new contracts. The same should be done for the airport. Have the public participation. Who or which company have been revising/reviewing and managing this project for the Government
Every Major project must have a management team/PEU. Without such a team, how does the Government disburse progress payments, who inspectsthe work for quality/quantity and that the scope is met, the schedule is met for liquidated damages, variations and extra works payments? I am surprised that Ralph Ramkarrran, a man of his calibre, stated that not to retender is proper. There is a rumor that Minister Ramjattan was instrumental in letting Mr Ramkarran’s brother remain as Ambassador in Washington.  If there is any truth in this, which I do not believe, this is betraying Minister Ramjattan.
The public is speculating that all parties know of the invalid performance bond from the inception, and that it will be used as a “trump card”, in the event the contractor fail to come up with the inducements after the award.  Knowing the modus operandi of State Planning/ Budgeting of the Ministry of Finance, the GRA and NICIL of the PPP 23 years, which is retained by the coalition would lend credence to such speculation.
Joe Persaud

---

---