Contract to complete Leguan Stelling to be retendered
The incomplete Leguan Stelling
The incomplete Leguan Stelling

NOW that the initial contract to rehabilitate the Leguan Stelling has been terminated, the Ministry of Public Works is examining other options to ensure that the project is completed in the shortest possible time.
“It has to be retendered; whether it be through public tendering or selective tendering or restrictive tendering is a different matter,” Public Works Minister, Juan Edghill, told the Guyana Chronicle on Monday.
He added, “We got to engage through a procurement process that is allowable to get a contractor to complete the work.”

The Public Works Minister indicated too that in addition to ensuring the work is completed to satisfaction, the government will also pursue sanctions against the errant contractor, S. Maraj Contracting Services. Edghill asserted that the Attorney-General has been consulted and is likely to spearhead legal efforts to recoup government monies wasted on the project.

After two years of delays, the ministry moved to terminate the services of the aforementioned company, following a “thorough review” which determined that the company is “incapable, unable, and does not possess the wherewithal to successfully execute this project valued at $413,259,260.”
Ever since the contract was signed on September 20, 2018, under the previous administration, the contractor received payments totaling $199,435,000, which is almost 50 per cent of the overall contract sum.

“[This] is outside of normal procurement practices and a breach of the Fiscal Management Accountability Act that can be best described as a corrupt transaction,” Edghill said in a previous interview.
He noted that the actual works and materials on site are estimated at just about $100 million, and that efforts have commenced to ensure that the construction site is secured, and all the materials and equipment belonging to the Public Works Ministry are safeguarded.

“A contract that should have been completed in six months, signed on September 20, 2018 received an advance payment on September 26, 2018, but the contractor only received his order to commence works on December 6, 2018,” Edghill lamented.

The minister had lamented the fact that the contractor was in possession of “tens of millions of tax payers’ dollars” for almost three months before he was required to begin work.

“This contract was expected to be completed by June 7, 2019. It is now 20 months beyond the completion date. By April 19, 2019, the advance payment bond as well as the performance bonds had expired,” the minister has said.

He noted that by October 30, 2019, the contractor, having received the contract to build the stelling, used the argument of a faulty bill of quantities and earned himself an additional $20,650,000 for the supply and delivery of piles for the same Leguan stelling.

“It is inconceivable that a contract for the building of a stelling will not include the piles, one of the most important components for the construction of the stelling,” Edghill posited. He noted, too, that the Auditor General has informed that at the time of the audit, the contractor was paid for measured works but there was no measured works breakdown attached to the payment certificates.

Additionally, the Public Works Minister complained that variations and change of scope of works could not have been measured and quantified since no documents were available and submitted.
“It was clear that there was poor contract administration and oversight. The Auditor General has indicated that payments made in some instances were in breach of the Fiscal and Management Accountability Act,” Edghill emphasised.

Further, Edghill told the Department of Public Information, on Monday, that prior to the termination of the contract, the contractor had recently requested an additional nine months to complete the six months’ worth of works stipulated in the contract that should have been completed almost two years ago.

Despite all the controversies that surround the project, Edghill said that terminating the contract was a last resort. He said that prior to contract termination, the contractor was engaged on four separate occasions.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.