This entry in Ednmund Gall's blog contains the entire press release from Jack....the Express doesn't have the entire thing and I didn't check the Guardian.....
http://www.knowtnt.com/node/296WhAATT going on, Min. Warner?
October 10, 2010 by Edmund Gall
The Trinidad Express broke the story on 08 Oct 2010 of a TT$47 million contract being awarded at the Airports Authority of T&T (AATT) despite there being no Board installed. In response, two separate press releases were issued on the same day: one from the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) - which allegedly followed an emergency meeting at the Hon. PM's home - and the other from Min. Warner (see below for the unedited version I received via facebook). When added to other breaking stories on 09 Oct 2010, there remains some unanswered questions.
The OPM's release stated that the contract was rescinded, but Min. Warner's release stated that a decision was taken to re-tender the contract. No dates were given for either decision.
According to the OPM's release: 'This matter was previously brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, who had then instructed that should such a contract be awarded in the absence of accountability and transparency, the same should be voided.'
This may indicate the Hon. PM knew about the tender, possibly after 02 Jun 2010 when the final evaluations were completed. If her instruction was made to Min. Warner before he decided to award the contract, then he was wrong.
The OPM's release ends: 'In light of the allegations now in the public domain, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of transparency and accountability, the Prime Minister has concluded that the award of this contract must be reviewed with a view to rescission of same.'
This suggests that the Hon. PM did not know the contract was awarded until the story broke. It also suggests that the Hon. PM requested the contract be reviewed/rescinded for different reasons to what Min. Warner said in the final sentence of his release, viz.: 'I wish to advise that after further consultation, a decision was taken to have the project retendered since my decision to share the contracts between the two companies was not part of the initial established tendering rules.'
I'm wondering what value of contract needs to be declared to Cabinet before being awarded - anyone know? I presume contract decisions will have to be shared with the Ministry of Finance, but I wonder if they need to be declared to Cabinet, especially if a Board is not installed. Based on the OPM's release, it seems Cabinet didn't know anything about this. I would hope that there is some process for awarding contracts without a Board being in place, otherwise the lengthy Board appointment process immediately after regime changes would delay urgent work (despite this project clearly not being urgent since it was first approved for tendering by the last AATT Board 31 Jul 2009).
The questions for Min. Warner would thus be:
When did he decide to award the contract to the two tenderers?
Did the PM advise him, or was he aware of her instruction, that any contract awarded without the Board in place would be rescinded?
If yes, (a) why did he proceed to award the contract, and (b) are such contract awards supposed to be declared in Cabinet?
When was the decision taken to re-tender due to his awarding to two tenderers not being in the rules - was it before the story broke or after? Remember, the award was allegedly made on 21 Sep, about 18 days before the story broke.
I would also like confirmation of which view is right, i.e. Min. Warner's view that the rules allow him to award tenders without the Board in place (as he stated in his release), which TTTI Chairman Richard Josephs agrees with or the view of Elton Prescott SC who believes that flouts the AATT's tendering rules.
Min. Jack Warner's News Release - 09 Oct 2010
The following is a news release from the Hon Jack Warner, Minister of Works and Transport, in response to an article appearing in today's edition of the Trinidad Express entitled; "Airport Authority approves $47m contract one day after receiving bid by Central firm, with no board in place”
The contract in question, relates to the following:
Upgrade of the Airfield Lighting and Control and Monitoring System at the Piarco International Airport (PIA) and Crown Point International Airport (CPIA);
Upgrade of the Approach Lighting System at the Piarco International Airport.
Background
The above project was developed based on the need for both the Piarco and Crown Point International Airports to have properly functioning visual aids for navigation as the existing systems continue to malfunction and the Airports Authority continues to have difficulties in obtaining parts. In addition, the unit at PIA cannot be expanded to meet the increased requirements of the North Terminal and the category II upgrade to the Runway.
Runway 10 has an existing approach lighting system supporting Category 1 operations and as part of the Piarco International Airport upgrade to Category II the approach lighting system has to be upgraded. Also in support of this upgrade, the cabling, the runaway [sic] centreline lights and transformers must be installed.
The runway rehabilitation project at CPIA which is currently in progress has included in the scope of works the replacement of the airfield lighting (including the windsock and obstruction lights) and replacement of cabling to an interface manhole. The scope for the Field Electrical Centre (FEC) project and CPIA ends at the interface manhole.
The Project
The work consists of replacing the field electrical cabinets and installation of a new airfield lighting control and monitoring system at both the Piarco International Airport and the Crown Point International Airport. FAA advisory circulars were utilised in developing the specifications for the components of the FEC.
Additional works at the PIA includes the replacement of the approach lighting system. The location of the new FEC for PIA is east of the detention pond and there is no immediate power supply to the area. It is therefore necessary to provide the power for the FEC from the North Terminal ELECTRICAL SYSTEM.
Tender Process
At the July 31, 2009 the Airports Authority Board meeting, members approved Paper No. 95 of 2009 for the issue of the tender call for the upgrade of the Airfield Lighting Control and Monitoring System at the Piarco Internal Airport and Crown Point International Airport and the upgrade of the Approach Lighting System at the Piarco International Airport. At this meeting members also approved the evaluation Committee and the Evaluation criteria.
Due to the nature and complexity of this project the tender submission a two envelope system [sic]. The technical proposals included the technical evaluation form with supporting documents, tender security and implementation strategy. The Price proposal included the letter of tender, Appendix to tender and bull [sic] of quantities. The tender call note to the board stipulated that only Price proposals of companies scoring over 75% will be eligible for opening of their financial packages. The tender was advertised in the daily newspapers during the period October 2nd to 8th 2009 with a mandatory pre bid meeting and site visit on Wednesday October 14, 2009 at PIA and Thursday 25, 2009 at CPIA. Nineteen (19) companies attended the pre bid meeting and site visit at PIA and eighteen (18) at CPIA. Seven addenda were issued. Bids closed on December 18, 2009 and the tender box was publicly opened on the same day by Ms. Kathleen Gittens of the Legal Department and witnessed by Ms. Sheila Ramdhanie, Facilties and Maintenance Manager and Mrs. Carmela Wallace-Shanklin of the Financial Comptroller’s office. Seven submissions were received on the date of the opening with Plant Solutions Ltd declining to submit a bid.
At the February 2010 Tenders Committee meeting members rejected paper No. 6 of 2010 for the recommendation of the Technical Evaluation Committee to invite United Engineering Services Ltd to the opening of their financial package as they were the only company to score over 75% in the Technical Evaluations. Members were advised of the following:
Abort the Tender Process and return to the un-opened Financial Packages to each Bidder; or
Re-issue a revised Tender package and invite all companies who purchased the original tender packages to submit bids.
The re-issue of the revised Tender package was sent out on March 8, 2010 with tenders closing on March 24, 2010. The changes in the revised tender package are listed below:
a. From a two envelope system to a one envelope system
b. Amendments in the evaluation criteria to include costing and changes in the relative ranking of each criteria
c. More emphasis to be placed on the past performance of the Contractor and their Sub Contractor
d. Similar experience must be airfield electrical experience
e. A Sub Contractor can only be associated with one main Contractor.
The revised Bids closed on March 24, 2010 and the tender box was publicly opened on the same day by senior officials of the Airports Authority. Nine (9) submissions were received on the date of opening.
Evaluation
The evaluation process of the bids started on April 14, 2010, with presentations by bidders over the period May 19 to June 2, 2010. The Evaluations were then completed on June 2, 2010.
The Bids from ANSA Technologies and JUSAMCO Pavers Ltd were deemed inadmissible as both companies included Airside Installations as their Sub Contractor. The Evaluation form, pg EF 15 specifically indicated that “each Sub Contractor can only be associated with one main contractor”.
Ms. Tara John, Senior Legal Counsel reviewed all packages for compliance. Harry Persad and Sons Ltd and TEK Egineering/Jantesa were the only two companies to be fully compliant. The review of the financials was done by Ms. Lala Nasib, Financial Comptroller. TEK Engineering Ltd and Jantesa, S.A and Subsidiaries being responsible for procurement formed a joint venture for this project with Jantessa [sic], S.A. and Subsidiaries being responsible for procurement of the FEC equipment and all other airfield items. The review showed that although TEK Engineering is financially sound (rating 9), Jantesa scored low at 4 and there were concerns regarding their ability to maintain a “going concern” status. The other five companies are all financially sound with the exception of GLF Contruction Corporation which had a rating of 2. Although they had a high sales turnover, all the ratios were all below the industry standard average and were cause for concern.
Due to the estimated cost of this project being in excess of $50 million and the nature and complexity of the project, the following criteria were considered critical by the evaluation team members:
Average annual turnover over the last five years to be no less than $25 million which is an indication that the company has the financial resources for funding this project. Each company should also be a registered company for no less than 5 years. This scoring took into consideration that the project is estimated at approximately $60 million, with an advance payment of 10% of the contract value and minimum interim payments of $5 million. GLF Construction Corporation, STATE Group, TEK Engineering/Jantesa S.A and United Engineering were the only companies that demonstrated they have the necessary resources and experience as a contractor and were therefore allotted the 10 points for general experience.
Three companies demonstrated that they had successful experience as a contractor or Sub Contractor in the experience of at least 2 airfield electrical projects of a similar nature and complexity which is an indication of the ability of the Contractor to successfully execute the project within the limitations of the airfield. Harry Persad and Sons Ltd, GLF Contractors and United Engineering Ltd were the companies who selected Sub Contractors with the necessary airfield electrical experience. They were ranked high in similar work experience.
The evaluations were completed on Wednesday, June 2, 2010, and the following two contractors were ranked the highest:
United Engineering Services Ltd, and
Harry Persad and Sons Ltd.
Based on the above and in my capacity as Minister of Works and Transport being the line Minister responsible for the Airports Authority and having regard to section 85 (1) of the Constitution which gives a Minister who has been assigned responsibility for any department of government, general direction and control over the department, and having regard to recommendations made to me by senior management of the Airports Authority over the selection criteria used to evaluate tenders for this project, and also having regard to the absence of a Board of Directors at the Authority, I granted approval to the Authority to make the following award:
Contract to Harry Persad and Sons Limited for the upgrade of the Approach Lighting System and the Airfield Lighting Control and Monitoring System at the Piarco International Airport in the sum of TT$47, 785,768.92 VAT exclusive;
Contract to United Engineering Services Limited for the upgrade of the Airfield Lighting Control and Monitoring System at the Crown Point International Airport in the Sum of TT$35,402,400.62 VAT exclusive.
It is to be noted that after a rigid evaluation process the above companies received the highest ranking and in that regard, I approved the award of the contracts to both of them.
Negative Campaign by Inshan Ishmael
For the past few weeks, Mr. Inshan Ishmael, a foreign used car dealer from Bamboo Settlement, has been engaged in a mischievous, hateful and negative campaign against me in my capacity as Minister of Works and Transport relative to an award of a $47 Million contract and has been imputing misconduct and/or corrupt practice on my part. He has used his television station together with the rest of the electronic and print media to conduct his hate campaign. In my capacity as Minister of Works and Transport, I put the above in the public’s domain so that the records can be corrected and the truth be revealed. It is also critical to note that Mr. Inshan Ishmael [sic] hate campaign is one that is motivated by personal vendetta because he could not have had his way with me as Minister of Works and Transport.
Prior to all of the above, Mr. Ishmael has had several meetings with my senior staff including the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry. At these meetings, he complained bitterly at alleged corruption at the Licensing Authority and asked for my Ministry’s intervention in the matter. He also asked for the firing of the Transport Commissioner, copies of inventories at the Licensing Authority and an appointment as Chairman of the Transport Board. In one of our meetings, he made a presentation of a new facility for the building of bridges and asked that building contracts be awarded to him.
Following these meetings, in conjunction with the Transport Commissioner, we held a press conference at the Ministry at which he attended and spoke. I outlined certain measures which we shall be adopting soon to arrest the scourge of corruption at the Licensing Authority. I was then privately approached by Mr. Inshan Ishmael and I told him that I have no reason or the authority to fire the Transport Commissioner and do not share his opinion that it is the way to deal with corruption at the Licensing Authority. I also informed him that I will not be handing over to him records at the licensing Authority since it is the property of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and it will be illegal to do so. I further advised him that I cannot recommend him to be Chairman of the Transport Board or to sit as a member since this will be a major conflict of interest given the private business in which he is involved.
I have received written correspondence from a Singaporain [sic] car dealer by the name of Erwin Tion from Gunung Majau Enterprise who claimed that Mr. Inshan Ishmael informed him that he is the adviser for the People's Partnership Government, particularly the Transport Minister and Attorney General and that he can clear any ages of vehicles sent to Trinidad which he has ordered since he had done so recently. I wish to put on public record that Mr. Inshan Ishmael is not, and has never been an adviser to this Government nor the Minister of Works and Transport. I wish to also assure that the administrative system being put in place at our Licensing Offices will weed out all alleged corrupt practices by all foreign used car dealers in Trinidad and Tobago.
Mr. Ishmael has since turned against me and has been launching an intensive campaign against me. I remain resolute in my thrust to improve the lives of the people of Trinidad and Tobago and will not be deterred by Mr. Ishmael or anyone who might be inclined to pitch stumbling blocks in my way. I will always discharge my duties in accordance with my oath of office and will always work in the service of all of the people of Trinidad and Tobago. I deplore in the strongest possible terms, any attempt to impute acts of wrongdoing or corrupt practice on my part. I will discharge my duties to the best of my knowledge and abilities. The Express headline story on page 3 of today’s edition seeks to portray the impression that the contract was awarded without any formal tendering process. It is hoped that the above facts correct such perception. I wish to advise that after further consultation, a decision was taken to have the project retendered since my decision to share the contracts between the two companies was not part of the initial established tendering rules.