Kato School was never certified by supervising firm

Aug 06, 2016 News

---

-Contractor mislead Min. of Education in progress reports—-consultants

By Jarryl Bryan

The “completed” works on the Kato Secondary School by Kares Engineering, never received the final

stamp of approval from the supervising firm, Design and Construction Services Limited (DCSL).
This is according to DCSL, the consultant tasked with ensuring that Kares constructed the school according to contract stipulations.
DCSL’s Managing Director, Ravi Ramlakhan, made this comment in response to the draft technical report on the School which was compiled by Rodrigues Architects Limited, headed by Albert Rodrigues.
The consultant said that Kares Engineering never completed the job to its satisfaction and as such, it did not issue a Certificate of Practical Completion.
After a Ministry of Public Infrastructure sponsored trip to the Kato School complex in Region Eight on Wednesday, this publication had highlighted a number defects throughout the complex.
The tour also facilitated experts from Rodrigues Architects Limited. And from independent observations, the school was riddled with cracks in the base structures for stairs and railings, sinking ceilings, uneven stairs, mould build up and termite infestations.
In response to these conditions being highlighted, Kares Engineering had stated that to date, it is not in receipt of a complaint or request for corrective works.
DCSL, however, contradicted Kares’s claims.
The supervising firm said in its report that after Kares claimed to have “practically completed” the works in April, 2015, an official was dispatched to verify this.

“Our senior Project Manager, Patrick Pitt, visited the site from April 26 to April 29, 2015 and produced a Site Visit Report dated May 4, 2015. (This contained) a list of defective and outstanding works. However, the contractor failed to complete the works.”
In spite of Pitt’s report to DCSL, Kares Engineering still insisted that it addressed the outstanding work. However, repeated site visits by Pitt only served to produce more updated lists of defects. DCSL subsequently reported that Kares began to skip out on meetings between them and the Ministry of Education.
“He was finally made to attend a meeting at the Ministry on August 25, 2015 and yet again, he gave a commitment to address the defective works on site. The contractor mobilized on site from September 2 to September 18, 2015, but even after this, the defective works remained to be completed.”
In view of its failure to complete the job it was contracted to do, DCSL reported that the Certificate of Practical Completion was withheld. This certificate is crucial, as it marks the point where the contractor has completed his contract and can hand over the building to the Ministry.
MISLEADING REPORTS
DCSL also reported that Kares Engineering would often report directly to the Ministry and submit erroneous or misleading progress reports.
These progress reports were designed to ensure that the then Ministry of Education keep itself up to date with the construction, which began in 2013. According to the consultants, however, they frequently had to intervene to disprove the statements made by the firm and “(set) the record straight to the Ministry.”
DCSL, which has its offices in Anira Street, Queenstown, described the company’s actions as “highly inappropriate and challenging”. The consultants also stated that Kares would discuss and negotiate strategies and approaches for the construction directly with the Ministry.
“The contractor appeared to have a substantial amount of work through other projects with the Ministry of Education and as such, was well known to the Ministry.”
“Therefore, he appeared to enjoy a certain familiarity with the Ministry,” DCSL said, hastening to add that it was not suggesting anything improper. “But his direct communication and his soliciting of decisions from the Ministry at times undermined us as consultants, and should not have been encouraged.”
DCSL also reported its difficulties in getting work programmes from Kares. This work programme is essential in order for the consultant to be able to evaluate the contractor’s work progress.
“In spite of giving the contractor several verbal and written instructions to submit a detailed, revised work programme for the project, he was slow to provide this information. We formally reminded (Kares) of his contractual obligation.”
According to the consultant, this was done by way of letters dated September 19, 2013; November 11, 2013; and December 4, 2013. The consultant reported that a programme was finally submitted later that month, with a revised project completion date of July 31, 2015.
In addition, DCSL reported that Kares Engineering was reminded, on several occasions, to submit monthly valuations, in order to ensure that spending on the project could be tracked.
“It would appear that initially the contractor did not see the value in submitting monthly valuations as he had not done sufficient work to counter the recovery of the mobilization advance (advance payment to Kares).”
“(The contractor) tended to be more motivated by his need for cash flow in his submission of valuations than supporting good financial management of the project.”
Construction of the school started in 2013 under the previous administration and the edifice was scheduled to be opened in January 2016. This was delayed following the discovery of the defects.

---

---