Auditor General (AG) Deodat Sharma has advised the Ministry of Education to terminate a more than $350 million contract for the construction of the St Rose’s High School after the contractor failed to complete the work more than a year after the award.
In his 2019 report, which covers the year 2018, and which was seen by Sunday Stabroek, Sharma stated that the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board had awarded a contract in the sum of $352.710 million for construction of the school along Church street but though the contractor received an advance payment of $52.906 million followed by one interim payment of $5.186 million, no work has been completed.
“At the time of reporting the Advance Payment was not recovered [and] based on an examination of the contract and a physical verification of completed works, measurements and calculations [it] was discovered that…the site was abandoned and overrun with bushes. No equipment or materials were on site, while the only personnel from the contractor present was a security guard,” the report said.
In May last year, Chairman of the school’s Board Governors Kenrick Thomas said an alteration in the design and foundation of the new building was the reason behind the delay in the start of construction.
The AG’s report highlighted that no details regarding the advertisement for the works or Evaluation Report were presented for audit examination and therefore the Audit Office was unable to determine when the works were advertised and the basis of award of the contract.
Additionally, the engineer’s estimate could not be determined from the documents submitted for audit examination and while the Notification of Award was sent to the contractor since 24 April 2018, the contract, for reasons which remain unclear, was signed four months later on 8 August 2018.
The contractor, it was discovered, had been issued with the advance payment despite a failure to provide an advance bond as required by the contract. Further, an advance guarantee from an insurance company was provided instead of the required bank guarantee.
Though the ministry’s Permanent Secretary has attempted to explain that discrepancy as due to a design review, the AG has recommended that the payment be recovered and the contract terminated.
“The initial foundation design could not sustain the applied loads for the proposed building and that process along with the ensuing process for the Tender Board award would have been responsible for this delay,” the ministry explained. Notably, the company which designed the building was also expected to supervise its construction and has apparently failed to adequately perform either task.
The AG has recommend that the Supervising Con-sultant, the Byno-Rowe Wiltshire Partnership of Trinidad, be held responsible for failing to recognise that the advance payment bond was not in accordance with the contract.
The company had been issued a contract in the sum of US$134,790 for provision of consultancy services (Design and Supervision) for the reconstruction of the school in 2017.
According to the AG, no details regarding the advertisement for the design and supervision services or Evaluation Report were presented for audit examination but it was noted that one bid was received and the contract was awarded to the sole bidder with a letter of acceptance issued to the consultant on 30 August 2017. The signed contract agreement, however, was undated and stated the year as 2017.
The duration for the services was from 30 August 2017 to 30 July 2018 for the design phase, while the supervision services commenced upon the signing of the contract for the construction works.
“A physical verification conducted on 6 August 2019 revealed that the contractor has not commenced any construction works and we have not seen any documentation from the supervising consultant regarding the reasons why the works have not commenced,” the report stated. The AG requested that the ministry submit a Tender Evaluation Report, insurances for the contract, Commencement Letter, a detailed site layout for the construction works, detailed construction drawings, justification for stoppage of works, contractor’s approved work programme, copy of the Supervising Consultant’s Supervision contract and payments made for supervision to date and a copy of the most recent site progress meeting.
In a statement posted on the school’s alumni association’s Facebook page, Thomas had said modifications were done to the proposed design of the building and as a result the project engineers had recommended a change in the foundation to support the building. “The result has been that this newly designed structure can no longer use the originally designed foundation to support this newly enhanced building, which now meets our school’s needs adequately. It is proposed that the new structure be supported by a pile foundation, which will prevent any movement such as sinking or subsiding of the new structure,” he explained.
Thomas related that the replacement structure was redesigned to accommodate aspects of the original facilities, auditorium, departments, rooms and office needs and the retention of the green space courtyard area, which is a unique feature of the school.
He noted that the changes in the foundation come at a higher cost and a request had to be made for additional funding from the Ministry of Education as a variation sum. He explained that “due to the tender board requirements, this new variation cost must first go through an independent process, verification and approval before it can be accepted as such.”
He further added that the independent process should be completed shortly and pave the way for commencement of the construction.
