Dear Editor,
We refer to the letter, ‘Edghill’s figures on Wartsila are grossly inaccurate’ in Stabroek News on February 17.
Regrettably, this response penned under the name of Minister David Patterson is nothing but a public relations exercise, a sleight of hand, an attempt at deception. We, the PPP/C were astonished when the Minister proclaimed that Wartsila received its contract payment for just “checking off” from time to time what the skilled Guyanese workers had done. The question was not the contract figure but what the goods and services were being provided by the Wartsila contract, a question the Minister studiously avoided. To confirm with the public a figure for a sense of what was at stake, we the PPP/C, put the Wartsila contract figure at approximately US$7.5million per year. The Minister’s response lists figures of US$6.2million from 2008 to US$9.6million for 2015, averaging US$7.9million per year over the period, close enough for the purpose, but then neither of the charges against me of gross inaccuracy or of slamming Edghill is justified.
Recall that Minister Patterson had claimed in Parliament that Wartsila received US$25,000/day for just “checking off” the work done by the 194 skilled Guyanese. We, the PPP/C, have maintained that the Wartsila contract paid the wages and all benefits including the training of the 194 skilled Guyanese as well as all additional expert services and paid for the running spares. The Minister has totally bypassed this issue.
To claim, maintain and justify the savings of switching from Wartsila to PPDI the Minister must tell us:
- Who are PPDI and whom might they have retained (we need to know the names), and whether they can and would provide a similar level of skilled, experienced oversight and continuous interactive management, and that they are all paid from the contract? So far we have only been told that there are two directors: the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Mr Balram Balraj and Attorney-at-law Mr Ronald Burch-Smith. This, thus, appears to be a government-owned company. Are we to see it being transitioned to a public-private partnership or a totally private company? One would need to keep an eye on any transition to see the movement of risks, obligations and responsibilities.
- Are the 194 skilled Guyanese and all additional expert services, as required from time to time, to be paid by PPDI from the contract as was the case with Wartsila?
III. Are the ‘running spares’ and expert services being provided (paid for) by PPDI from the contract as was the case with Wartsila?
- Is the attainment of similar efficiencies (conversion of fuel to kWh), lube oil consumption and availability included and are the penalties for shortfall the same as in the Wartsila contract?
If the answers to questions II, III and IV are not all affirmative we may have a scam; and if any is in the affirmative, the Minister must retract what he said in Parliament.
Yours faithfully,
Bishop Juan Edghill, MP