Dear Editor,
I would like to fully endorse the contents of Mr Charles Sohan’s letter of February 21, in the Stabroek News ‘Patterson should have reviewed his staff performance for failing to monitor contractors’. Mr Sohan has identified a problem which is endemic to the Ministries of Public Infrastructure (MoPI) and Agriculture. The fact that exactly the same patterns and absence of review were evident in the failures of the Charity Wharf and the Mon Repos Sea defences, way back in 1997-98, confirms that Minister Patterson is no better at resolving these issues than the equivalent minister(s) under several PPP regimes.
The irony of the entire situation is that the MoPI was taken to task by the current Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Irfaan Alli. Mr Alli’s performance itself as the Minister of Housing and Water was no less stellar than that of either Minister Patterson of the MoPI or Minister Holder of the Ministry of Agriculture. Mr Alli’s sincerity in calling for the MoPI to blacklist the companies involved in the East Bank and East Coast fiascos is questionable given his failure to take similar action when he was the Minister of Housing and Water. His performance as Minister of Housing and Water has created need for corrective action on several of the projects executed under his tenure.
Terms of Reference for projects currently being undertaken by the APNU+AFC government mandate successful completion of projects with a minimum value and of a certain type. The government continues to qualify both contractors and consultants, including those involved in the East Bank and East Coast road projects, who have failed to successfully undertake several projects.
A typical example is the recent request for qualifiers as consultants for the construction of the bridge across the proposed Cunha Canal. The Terms of Reference for that project mandated supervision of construction of a similar bridge structure within the immediate previous 10 years. The only local companies with claims to such experience are those involved in the construction of the bridge over the Hope Canal, a failed project. Further, one of the companies involved in the Hope Bridge fiasco was recently ranked first for provision of consulting services for the bridge over the Demerara River at Mackenzie-Wismar. This further validates the issues raised by Mr Sohan. The failure of that specific company to successfully supervise the Hope Canal Bridge was totally discounted from consideration by the engineers in the MoPI under the watch of Minister Patterson.
Minister Patterson is advised to follow the example of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago (GoTT), specifically as related to the failure of the Las Alturas Towers. The GoTT initiated an enquiry after two of the housing towers in the scheme, valued at $26 million, were demolished following a number of structural issues as a result of the relevant technical work having not been done prior to construction. Guyana faces a similar scenario with the approaches to the Hope Canal Bridge and several other projects in Guyana. In spite of this, neither the MoPI nor the Ministry of Agriculture has initiated anything even close to an enquiry.
The Ministry of Agriculture in a manner similar to the MoPI refuses to acknowledge its culpability in endorsing the work of the consultants on the Hope Bridge. It is now the responsibility of the Chairman of the PAC to call upon both the MoPI and the Ministry of Agriculture to suspend both consultants and contractors who have failed to provide the appropriate standard of care. Further the MoPI and Ministry of Agriculture must immediately remove the veil around development of qualifications criteria for projects being undertaken under their watch. To do any less will simply confirm that the APNU+AFC and the PPP/C are the equivalent of a half a dozen of one, six of the other.
Yours faithfully,
Charles P Ceres
