May 19, 2022, 08:33:44 AM

Author Topic: T&T Coast Guard new vessels  (Read 50815 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #150 on: October 24, 2010, 12:59:06 AM »
.....does BAE have a deadline by which to take legal action??   :thinking:

The window (or deadline) for bringing suit is called the statute of limitations.  In England this is governed by the Limitations Act of 1980, which set the statute of limitations for filing a breach of contract claim at 6 yrs.  So BAE would have until September (or whichever month it was Kamla make de announcement) 2016 to sue the TT government.  They literally could twiddle their thumbs for the next 5 yrs, 364 days and file at midnight before the appointed hour.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #151 on: October 24, 2010, 01:02:30 AM »
This thing is more than just scoring political points. It's about our national security and taxpayers' money. Surely the PM missed the mark on both accounts.

The kinda financial penalty we looking at will make all the "Summit was wasteful" talk irrelevant.  Just consider that the value of the contract alone was £150 million... that's what $1.5 billion TT?  Not even counting penalties and/or damages.

Offline fishs

  • I believe in the stars in the dark night.
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #152 on: October 24, 2010, 02:27:01 AM »
Quote
"A document was signed by BAE in April 2010 where the previous (PNM) government, realising that there were delays taking place, sought to enforce the contract, met with BAE, enforced the clause in the contract and agreed by negotiation on a figure of $20,000 per day in damages for delay and it came (up) to $61 million.  "This (People's Partnership) Cabinet didn't do anything. That was done by April 2010 and we didn't only get six million pounds sterling under the clause of damages. We negotiated and got nine million pounds sterling, almost $100 million, and we took it in equipment, maintenance and training. So when you hear the Government talking about delays.  "The lawyers (for BAE) are laughing because up until April, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago had dealt with the matter of delays.

This is significant.  I have been saying all along that you can't unilaterally terminate a contract and not expose yuhself to litigation.  Here is it the PNM government went about things the right way, there was a breach and subsequent negotiations (apparently) resolved the issue, with BAE making concessions to the tune of $61 million.  There was some additional 9 millions GBP ($89m TTD) that was negotiated and rather than accept payment in cash, the goverment accepted payment in equipment, maintenance and training.  Very interesting.

Even if the PP thought this contract was a total waste... the only way to justify termination is if they calculate the damages they'd have to pay and figure it would be less than going thru with the contract.  I doubth their calculations could be correct because the Court would likely calculate damages to be the value to BAE had the contract been performed as agreed... that and the fact that it's never really wise to gamble on what a court will award the other side... unless you absolutely sure of all the factors the Court will consider.

I could gloat and call Anand and dem schupid now... but in reality is we ass tuh ketch fuh this mistake (as I see it) they making yes.

First off I think people giving Griffith too much credit here and I'm not saying you are Bakes.
To me it would be very very wrong for the Government to make a decision of terminating this contract without some very sound legal advice, the solicitor general's office is where these issues end up and in my experience they are very thorough and have a long history behind them with which to refer, also they would normally seek consultation and advice from lawyers in private practice.
The contract would have been between  GOTT and the supplier , the Permanent Secretary would have signed on behalf of GOTT, the PS's legal advisor would be the SG.
For PP to get a public servant (PS) to sign off on termination, a couple of things would have to happen, legal advice would have to be obtained  and  a note to cabinet would have been written and approved (this note written by public servants and vetted by the PS ) .

If PP was able to bypass advice from the SG, then the problems we have are much much bigger than this issue.
Ah want de woman on de bass

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #153 on: October 24, 2010, 04:49:51 AM »
Truth be told, the matter is a troubling one.  Three OPV's were really a bit much from the start.   If one was to look at the size of the vessels,the number of men it takes to man them, the daily operating costs as well as the fact that the T&T Cost Guard does not have a budget large enough to operate three OPVs we have a problem.

The decision to purchase 3 OPVs was a nole one and made because it was in keeping with Vision 2020.
T&T was supposed to be moving towards developed nation status, and to do so we had to be able to patrol all our terrirtorial waters, make sure we could moitor our fisheries, protect our off-shore platforms, monitor waters for environmental issues, provide search and resue platforms, ensure we had the ability to secure our borders, provide drug alcohol and arms interdiction, and as we moved to a greater position as a regional leader, lend support to our smaller, less industrial and less financially capable neighbours.

Another huge responsibility was disaster relief in the region.  So if we closely examine the reasoning behind the initial decision to purchase the OPVs we see a very noble ideal.

Trinidad and Tobago is an archipelego and as such it is very difficult to closely monitor for drugs and arms smuggling.  In my opinion, the purcgase of smaller, but capable vessels such as the 40 meter boats in the clas of CG5 and CG6  would have been better purchases, with the addition to the fleet of about 20 smaller interceptor craft.  These interceptor craft could be readily deployed from strategic bases aroud the island.  Not only giving greater visibility, but ready reponse to smugglers etc.  The acquisition of four 40 meter vessels and one OPV ( less costs than 3 OPV's )  would have been a better choice.   The man power it takes to man the 40 meter craft would not put a starin on the CG and these craft could quickly respond to the region's needs etc.

There is also an issue with the technology neded to support the effective deployment and strategic and tactical needs of the OPVs.  Out country has a nationwide microwave and radar system that extends up the islands, but ti was a poor purchase as it was seoncd hand, brokered by middlemen who did not have the technical expertise to adequatelt maintain it.  The Israelis who sold it are still training locals to mantain hte radar.

The police who have some maritime presence are poorly trained and are in fact a glorified fishing fleet.

Financial and legal issues aside, the T&T CG could have done with one OPV.   I am anxiously awaiting to see what will be the replacement crafts and where they will be acquiring them.

There is a mixed reaction to the cancellation of the contract from those in the know.  It is what it is, just wondering what the hell will the PP do to help the TTCG do their job?

Offline Brownsugar

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 10171
  • Soca in mih veins, Soca in mih blood!!
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #154 on: October 24, 2010, 05:24:35 AM »
First off I think people giving Griffith too much credit here and I'm not saying you are Bakes.
To me it would be very very wrong for the Government to make a decision of terminating this contract without some very sound legal advice, the solicitor general's office is where these issues end up and in my experience they are very thorough and have a long history behind them with which to refer, also they would normally seek consultation and advice from lawyers in private practice.
The contract would have been between  GOTT and the supplier , the Permanent Secretary would have signed on behalf of GOTT, the PS's legal advisor would be the SG.
For PP to get a public servant (PS) to sign off on termination, a couple of things would have to happen, legal advice would have to be obtained  and  a note to cabinet would have been written and approved (this note written by public servants and vetted by the PS ) .

If PP was able to bypass advice from the SG, then the problems we have are much much bigger than this issue.

We have to give him credit.  He is the only person (as far as I know) as "Security Advisor" that has said we don't need these OPV's.  And a cabinet decision was made (its referred to in article above). 

I understand what you are saying in terms of the layers of red tape cancelling the contracts would have had to go through, but the PM/PP is acting on whose advice??  As far as I'm aware, all signs point to the people with the technical know how saying we need the OPV's.  The only dissenting voice that I'm aware of was Gary Griffith's.....
"...If yuh clothes tear up
Or yuh shoes burst off,
You could still jump up when music play.
Old lady, young baby, everybody could dingolay...
Dingolay, ay, ay, ay ay,
Dingolay ay, ay, ay..."

RIP Shadow....The legend will live on in music...

Offline Jah Gol

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8493
  • Ronaldinho is the best player of our era
    • View Profile
    • The Ministry of Noise
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #155 on: October 24, 2010, 06:18:24 AM »
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/v/10150303445035311" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.facebook.com/v/10150303445035311</a>

Offline Brownsugar

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 10171
  • Soca in mih veins, Soca in mih blood!!
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #156 on: October 24, 2010, 06:25:17 AM »
He also made the point that the government is going ahead with the purchase of the 4 helicopters at $2 billion.  But without the OPV's what is the use of the helicopters??  They were supposed to work in tandem.....
"...If yuh clothes tear up
Or yuh shoes burst off,
You could still jump up when music play.
Old lady, young baby, everybody could dingolay...
Dingolay, ay, ay, ay ay,
Dingolay ay, ay, ay..."

RIP Shadow....The legend will live on in music...

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #157 on: October 24, 2010, 06:46:49 AM »
He also made the point that the government is going ahead with the purchase of the 4 helicopters at $2 billion.  But without the OPV's what is the use of the helicopters??  They were supposed to work in tandem.....

You dont need OPVs for helicopters to wrk effectively

Offline Brownsugar

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 10171
  • Soca in mih veins, Soca in mih blood!!
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #158 on: October 24, 2010, 06:57:50 AM »
He also made the point that the government is going ahead with the purchase of the 4 helicopters at $2 billion.  But without the OPV's what is the use of the helicopters??  They were supposed to work in tandem.....

You dont need OPVs for helicopters to wrk effectively

They were bought as a package.  From listening to Dr. Rowley, the idea may have been (and as a military man you could tell me better), that the OPV's would do the bulk of the patrols and the helicopters would provide back up.....can the helicopters patrol 24/7 by themselves??

Yuh see ah still waiting to hear from the PP what kind of vessel will replace the OPV's.....dais where a piece of the puzzle missing for me....
"...If yuh clothes tear up
Or yuh shoes burst off,
You could still jump up when music play.
Old lady, young baby, everybody could dingolay...
Dingolay, ay, ay, ay ay,
Dingolay ay, ay, ay..."

RIP Shadow....The legend will live on in music...

Offline D.H.W

  • Forever Man Utd
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 17936
  • "Luck Favours The Prepared"
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #159 on: October 24, 2010, 07:12:31 AM »
exactly something have to replace it
"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid."
Youtube Channel


truetrini

  • Guest
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #160 on: October 24, 2010, 08:28:49 AM »
depends on the type of helicopters really, range etc.   However they already have several helicopters, thing is you will need additional helicopter pilots to keep them on constant patrol..shifts etc.

How effective helicopters will be depends on the equipment on them too..cameras, infrared and a lot of other varibales.

Comes down to the will to effectively do something.  ALl the equipment will amount to utten if the stakeholders do not have a plan and the cooperation and willingness of the men and women of the Coast Guard, pOlice, Army and Customs

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #161 on: October 24, 2010, 08:29:22 AM »
you know I feel I have a plan to tighten up the shores arounf T&T.


Offline Brownsugar

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 10171
  • Soca in mih veins, Soca in mih blood!!
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #162 on: October 24, 2010, 08:33:17 AM »
depends on the type of helicopters really, range etc.   However they already have several helicopters, thing is you will need additional helicopter pilots to keep them on constant patrol..shifts etc.

How effective helicopters will be depends on the equipment on them too..cameras, infrared and a lot of other varibales.

Comes down to the will to effectively do something.  ALl the equipment will amount to utten if the stakeholders do not have a plan and the cooperation and willingness of the men and women of the Coast Guard, pOlice, Army and Customs

OK.....
"...If yuh clothes tear up
Or yuh shoes burst off,
You could still jump up when music play.
Old lady, young baby, everybody could dingolay...
Dingolay, ay, ay, ay ay,
Dingolay ay, ay, ay..."

RIP Shadow....The legend will live on in music...

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #163 on: October 24, 2010, 08:37:35 AM »
First off I think people giving Griffith too much credit here and I'm not saying you are Bakes.
To me it would be very very wrong for the Government to make a decision of terminating this contract without some very sound legal advice, the solicitor general's office is where these issues end up and in my experience they are very thorough and have a long history behind them with which to refer, also they would normally seek consultation and advice from lawyers in private practice.
The contract would have been between  GOTT and the supplier , the Permanent Secretary would have signed on behalf of GOTT, the PS's legal advisor would be the SG.
For PP to get a public servant (PS) to sign off on termination, a couple of things would have to happen, legal advice would have to be obtained  and  a note to cabinet would have been written and approved (this note written by public servants and vetted by the PS ) .

If PP was able to bypass advice from the SG, then the problems we have are much much bigger than this issue.

I'm not sure to what your'e referring... the issue isn't one of "Who signed off on the termination of the contract", the issue is "On what basis do they think they are justified in terminating the contract"... it matters not which of the dancing fools jumped high enough when the pen was tossed into the air.

Offline fishs

  • I believe in the stars in the dark night.
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #164 on: October 24, 2010, 09:39:21 AM »
First off I think people giving Griffith too much credit here and I'm not saying you are Bakes.
To me it would be very very wrong for the Government to make a decision of terminating this contract without some very sound legal advice, the solicitor general's office is where these issues end up and in my experience they are very thorough and have a long history behind them with which to refer, also they would normally seek consultation and advice from lawyers in private practice.
The contract would have been between  GOTT and the supplier , the Permanent Secretary would have signed on behalf of GOTT, the PS's legal advisor would be the SG.
For PP to get a public servant (PS) to sign off on termination, a couple of things would have to happen, legal advice would have to be obtained  and  a note to cabinet would have been written and approved (this note written by public servants and vetted by the PS ) .

If PP was able to bypass advice from the SG, then the problems we have are much much bigger than this issue.

I'm not sure to what your'e referring... the issue isn't one of "Who signed off on the termination of the contract", the issue is "On what basis do they think they are justified in terminating the contract"... it matters not which of the dancing fools jumped high enough when the pen was tossed into the air.

You miss my point. The PS as the accounting officer would have to terminate the contract, to do that he/she would have to go to the SC for opinion and this opinion would inform the cabinet note, so what I'm sayins is that the decision should have been based on legal advice and if the Government ignored this advice and issued a cabinet minute to terminate then we are in big trouble, however if the legal advice was otherwise then obviously there is more to the circumstances within the contract than you are aware of.
To put it quite simply either there was good sound grounds for termination or there was not and we cannot look at it from the outside and say that the GOTT made a wrong decision based on the rantings of Rowley et al.
Ah want de woman on de bass

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #165 on: October 24, 2010, 10:05:38 AM »
You miss my point. The PS as the accounting officer would have to terminate the contract, to do that he/she would have to go to the SC for opinion and this opinion would inform the cabinet note, so what I'm sayins is that the decision should have been based on legal advice and if the Government ignored this advice and issued a cabinet minute to terminate then we are in big trouble, however if the legal advice was otherwise then obviously there is more to the circumstances within the contract than you are aware of.
To put it quite simply either there was good sound grounds for termination or there was not and we cannot look at it from the outside and say that the GOTT made a wrong decision based on the rantings of Rowley et al.

I'm not sure who the "SC" is.  As for the rest.. either you're late to the conversation or otherwise not understanding my position.  I'm really not concerned with the process by which they arrived at their decision, the decision is flawed.  I don't need to know more about "the circumstances within the contract"... those have been laid bare.  I'm speaking based on my knowledge of contract law, a company like BAE which does billions in contract sales worldwide absolutely WOULD NOT stipulate to a provision that allows the buyer to unilaterally terminate a contract.

Termination of contract is a decision of last resort only because it requires proof that the breaching party:

•Refuses to perform the contract
•Does something that the contract prohibits, or
•Prevents the other party from performing its obligations. 

Even then, armed with evidence of the above, common law is in favor of contract... which is to say, the court prefers to validate the contract rather than to invalidate it.  So where there is egregious conduct, the remedy favored by courts is damages to the non-breaching party, NOT termination.

Looking at Rowley's statements the decision to terminate seems even more foolhardy.  The prior administration was aware of the delays, and properly negotiated with the seller, rather than unilaterally, summarily and prematurely resorting to termination.  When there is non-performance the breaching party must be given an opportunity to Cure.  The PNM gave BAE an opportunity to cure the breach by entering into negotiations for the $61 million + the $100 million in equipment, maintenance and training.  In exchange BAE was given additional time to deliver.

The PNM then got voted out and the PP decided to terminate... essentially rescinding the opportunity to cure.  From a court's standpoint the change at the helm of the government is immaterial, the GOTT is the GOTT whether PNM or PP.  PP reneging on an agreement/contract made by the PNM is the same as if the PNM remained in power and reneged.  The process you cite in your argument very well could have been followed, but all that would indicate is that there was alignment of thought on several levels (the various stops along the bureaucratic process), populated by PP sympathisers.  Faithful navigation of this process as you think is necessary, very easily would result in a decision favored by the PP, rather than an objective decision based on sound legal advice.  Put plainly, if you have all your pardnas in the correct places where advice is sought then all you will get is the advice of people who like/think like you... not objectively sound, reasoned legal advice. 

So I could easily concede that they followed the proper channels in getting the termination signed off on, and still argue that they arrived at the wrong conclusion based on my knowledge of contract law.  And no, that does not mean that I know more than the Solicitor General and everybody else they consult, it just means we are looking at the law and applying the current facts to the law and arriving at different conclusions.  That happens everyday in court.

Offline fishs

  • I believe in the stars in the dark night.
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #166 on: October 24, 2010, 10:16:20 AM »
You miss my point. The PS as the accounting officer would have to terminate the contract, to do that he/she would have to go to the SC for opinion and this opinion would inform the cabinet note, so what I'm sayins is that the decision should have been based on legal advice and if the Government ignored this advice and issued a cabinet minute to terminate then we are in big trouble, however if the legal advice was otherwise then obviously there is more to the circumstances within the contract than you are aware of.
To put it quite simply either there was good sound grounds for termination or there was not and we cannot look at it from the outside and say that the GOTT made a wrong decision based on the rantings of Rowley et al.

So I could easily concede that they followed the proper channels in getting the termination signed off on, and still argue that they arrived at the wrong conclusion based on my knowledge of contract law.  And no, that does not mean that I know more than the Solicitor General and everybody else they consult, it just means we are looking at the law and applying the current facts to the law and arriving at different conclusions.  That happens everyday in court.

Fair enough, you have your opinion, I would want to see how this pans out in the fullness of time, remember BAE is the company that paid the big bribes to the Saudis and that alone makes them suspect to me.
Also all of the contracts (FIDIC) that I have been involved in have termination clauses and these jobs have been worth billions, the Petrorin vs GTL matter is a good case to consider whenever it gets decided.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2010, 10:25:08 AM by fishs »
Ah want de woman on de bass

Offline Jah Gol

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8493
  • Ronaldinho is the best player of our era
    • View Profile
    • The Ministry of Noise
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #167 on: October 24, 2010, 10:21:51 AM »
The PNM then got voted out and the PP decided to terminate... essentially rescinding the opportunity to cure.  From a court's standpoint the change at the helm of the government is immaterial, the GOTT is the GOTT whether PNM or PP.  PP reneging on an agreement/contract made by the PNM is the same as if the PNM remained in power and reneged. 
I think this is the most obvious feature of the issue and why I expected the PM and her advisors to act more carefully. How could they be so naive ?

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #168 on: October 24, 2010, 02:02:26 PM »
Fair enough, you have your opinion, I would want to see how this pans out in the fullness of time, remember BAE is the company that paid the big bribes to the Saudis and that alone makes them suspect to me.
Also all of the contracts (FIDIC) that I have been involved in have termination clauses and these jobs have been worth billions, the Petrorin vs GTL matter is a good case to consider whenever it gets decided.

I don't deny that termination is possible... what I did say is that termination is valid only when one of the three circumstances above are present.  I'm sure if you go back and look at the contracts you were involved in you'd see those three provisions represented in the language.  This was a case of delay in performance, not non-performance.  Delay can be a valid ground for termination if it results in breach... but the delay must be substantial or the breach material to the contract.  Unless I'm mistaken, the time for delivery of the vessels have not yet passed, therefore BAE has a right to cure, up to the time of delivery.  I don't mean to discount your past contract experience, but this issue isn't governed by contract law as it is by a subset of that, (International) Sales.  Contracts for the sale of goods are a different animal.

Offline weary1969

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 27225
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #169 on: October 24, 2010, 02:50:09 PM »
Nuff ah dem officers will leave d CG. It have nutten 4 dem now. Some ah them done strt 2 wuk on dey exit plan.
Today you're the dog, tomorrow you're the hydrant - so be good to others - it comes back!"

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #170 on: October 24, 2010, 02:57:12 PM »
Nuff ah dem officers will leave d CG. It have nutten 4 dem now. Some ah them done strt 2 wuk on dey exit plan.

what officers?  You mean the men sent to train overseas?  They were not exclusively officers, but you are right some have already been hired by different companies.

Offline weary1969

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 27225
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #171 on: October 24, 2010, 03:35:23 PM »
Nuff ah dem officers will leave d CG. It have nutten 4 dem now. Some ah them done strt 2 wuk on dey exit plan.

what officers?  You mean the men sent to train overseas?  They were not exclusively officers, but you are right some have already been hired by different companies.

CO-SIGN Officers as in cosign officers not commisioned ranks. I wonder if they saw that coming? doubt it so d have 2 train new persons now.
Today you're the dog, tomorrow you're the hydrant - so be good to others - it comes back!"

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #172 on: October 24, 2010, 04:03:18 PM »
well tjhey just cant leave, they are contracted you know

Offline weary1969

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 27225
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #173 on: October 24, 2010, 04:04:55 PM »
well tjhey just cant leave, they are contracted you know


Yes but u know exactly dat next time around u will know u not b renewing.
Today you're the dog, tomorrow you're the hydrant - so be good to others - it comes back!"

Offline Jah Gol

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8493
  • Ronaldinho is the best player of our era
    • View Profile
    • The Ministry of Noise
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #174 on: October 25, 2010, 03:58:39 PM »
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/v/10150303445035311" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.facebook.com/v/10150303445035311</a>

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #175 on: October 25, 2010, 05:38:11 PM »
Brilliant!  Is like Rowley been reading my postst... either that or the issue is clear to anybody with a passing familiarity with the underlying law.  I particularly like his point about the public pronouncements of the Prime Minister and how they vary with the legal arguments they're claiming as the basis for the breach.  I take no credit for that one, it didn't even dawn on me, but yeah... if privy to it, the lawyers for BAE will have a field day with that one.

For the past two days I arguing with a pardna ah mine who is ah mounted officer in the Defence Force... and he singing the same "defects" song, and how the three ships done late and dat is why they cancel.  He claim personal familiarity with the contract so ah really couldn't argue him the issue that BAE were in breach, other than to point out to him that per the dates of delivery BAE still had time to deliver the vessel, therefore at least that one wasn't late.  I doh think I really make ah dent... but is not me, is when de gavel hit them in dey head they go feel it.

Offline D.H.W

  • Forever Man Utd
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 17936
  • "Luck Favours The Prepared"
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #176 on: October 26, 2010, 11:00:54 AM »
i have a question, even if the government cancel the vessels, Can BAE take legal action to make the Government accept the vessels even if they were canceled? Is that even possible? or the cancellation is final?   
"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid."
Youtube Channel


Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #177 on: October 26, 2010, 02:56:18 PM »
i have a question, even if the government cancel the vessels, Can BAE take legal action to make the Government accept the vessels even if they were canceled? Is that even possible? or the cancellation is final?   

No, BAE will have to try and sell the vessels on the open market and the Gov't would have to come up with whatever balance short of what the contract say the vessels were worth.  It would be next to impossible to sell those vessels for anywhere close to their value since they are custom built.  That's like going to Toyota and special-ordering a 10-wheel car that can't turn corners, cancelling and expecting Toyota to be able to sell that.  Whoever buying it ent paying nowhere close to full price a) because it too customized to be or normal use; b) the buyer know s/he in the driver's seat and that you desperate to sell, so they have the bargaining upperhand.

Offline D.H.W

  • Forever Man Utd
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 17936
  • "Luck Favours The Prepared"
    • View Profile
Re: T&T Coast Guard new vessels
« Reply #178 on: November 24, 2010, 09:41:25 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/mBpt-tsPZVQ&amp;" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/mBpt-tsPZVQ&amp;</a>
"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid."
Youtube Channel


Offline Brownsugar

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 10171
  • Soca in mih veins, Soca in mih blood!!
    • View Profile
Search on for Patrol vessels
« Reply #179 on: August 29, 2011, 06:53:42 PM »
Ah cyar find the original OPV's thread, and ah not sure if this is posted some where else.  With all the talk about the SOE ah didn't want this to pass by un noticed......



Search on for patrol vessels
Ministry of National Security places ad...
By Joel Julien


ALMOST one year after the People's Partnership Government cancelled a contract to purchase three Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) from a British ship-building firm, the search is now on for "patrol vessels of proven design for the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force (Coast Guard)".

The Committee for the Acquisition of Naval Vessels, chaired by retired commodore Anthony Franklin, has been established to secure the purchase of the patrol vessels sought by the Government.

"The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago is interested in acquiring patrol vessels of proven design for the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force (Coast Guard)," an advertisement placed in the Sunday Express stated yesterday.

"The patrol vessels are intended for operations in the territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zone around Trinidad and Tobago and for the regional operations in the Southern Caribbean," the advertisement stated.

"These operations would include search and rescue, law enforcement and humanitarian operations based on Government's directives, agreements and treaties with neighbouring islands."

In April 2007, as part of a government-to-government arrangement, the then People's National Movement (PNM) administration signed a £150 million contract with VT Shipbuilding to build and commission three OPVs.

In October 2009, BAE Systems acquired full control of VT.
The vessels were part of a $5.1 billion expenditure approved by the former PNM government to acquire naval assets which would provide surveillance, protection capabilities, including drug interdiction, anti-smuggling operations and disaster relief functions within the region.

On September 17 last year, Minister of National Security John Sandy said Government served BAE Systems notice that the contract was being cancelled.

Government scrapped the contract for the three OPVs from BAE Systems because of a breach of contract, which included delays and defects in the construction of the vessels, Sandy told the House of Representatives last year.

"The desired vessels should be cost-effective, multi-mission platforms for use in the tropics, with long-range command and control capability and built to a recognised Classification Society standard," the National Security Ministry advertisement stated.

The "Request for Information" is also placed on the National Security Ministry's website.
Those interested are asked to submit their information no later than 4 p.m. on September 16.


http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Search_on_for_patrol_vessels-128570163.html
"...If yuh clothes tear up
Or yuh shoes burst off,
You could still jump up when music play.
Old lady, young baby, everybody could dingolay...
Dingolay, ay, ay, ay ay,
Dingolay ay, ay, ay..."

RIP Shadow....The legend will live on in music...