'Political motive' in axing contract

By AVA TURNQUEST

Tribune Staff Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

FORMER Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham’s decision to cancel the previous contract awarded to Holiday Industrial Builders International (HIBI) was “purely for political expediency”, lawyers representing the company said yesterday.

Attorney Kelphene Cunningham fired back at criticisms over the government’s decision to award HIBI a $20 million contract for the construction of a new Ministry of National Security building – a replica of the terminated project on which costs rocketed from $5.9 million to just over $14 million under the company’s purview.

HIBI’s legal counsel challenged the termination and were successful in arbitrating the matter, according to Ms Cunningham, who said the total sum of money paid to HIBI upon completion of arbitration was “just shy of $700,000”.

Ms Cunningham said: “It was determined that the contract was terminated without cause. We won, all of the materials in storage were returned to the government and we got our money. And that is the end of the matter.”

Ms Cunningham refused to provide a copy of the arbitration ruling; however, The Tribune is in possession of the final document set down on August 3 and amended on August 23.

HIBI and the Bahamas Mortgage Corporation (BMC) began arbitration in October 2011.

Yesterday in response to questions from The Tribune, National Insurance Minister Shane Gibson said he would table details concerning the bidding process for the new building when the House resumes on May 7.

He confirmed that the contract was valued at $20 million.

Last night former BMC Chairman Dr Duane Sands called on the government to consider the interests of the Bahamian people, adding that the country could not “digest another construction fiasco”. He called HIBI’s handling of the previous project an “overpriced disaster”.

News of the contract was met with criticism from the Opposition MP for Central Grand Bahama Neko Grant, the former Minister of Works, who branded HIBI as a “non-performing contractor” given challenges during the construction of the building that currently houses the Office of the Attorney General.

The building had been temporarily used by the Ministry of Tourism, but was originally slated for the BMC and the Department of Housing when the first contract for its construction was signed between the BMC and Lloyd Smith of HIBI in 2004.

The BMC terminated its contract with Holiday Industrial in November 2008, after which an independent review of the project by Construction Cost Engineering (CCE) was commissioned by the National Insurance Board (NIB).

According to the CCE report overpayments to Holiday Industrial, exclusive of professional fees, stood at $2.1 million between 2004 and 2007. It stated that overpayments were the result of arithmetical and miscalculation errors in authorised payment requests sent by the contractor; the incorrect application and record-keeping of payment deductions; and the failure to record direct purchases made on behalf of the contractor by the BMC.

Yesterday, Dr Sands, deputy chairman of the FNM, added that the major contributing fact to the project’s scheduling and cost overruns was the addition of an extra floor to accommodate Mr Gibson’s office as Minister responsible for the Corporation at that time.

In an interview with The Tribune, Dr Sands said that the outcome of the arbitration, which concluded under the current PLP administration, was significantly different from the status of discussions held under the former FNM administration.

A report prepared by Ms Cunningham on the arbitration between HIBI and the BMC, dated October 29, 2013, stated that there was no finding of sub-standard work by arbitrators.

The report also added that the building was 85 per cent complete at the time of cancellation – an admission it stated was made by the BMC.

It added: “Ingraham’s cessation of the contract was purely for political expediency”.

Last night Mr Grant said the outcome of the arbitration process did not explain why the building had not been completed after two years of construction. 

Mr Grant also called for Mr Gibson to answer questions put to him in the House of Assembly.

“I’m concerned about the fact that the contract was executed in 2004 and when (FNM) came in two and a half years later, the building was incomplete,” Mr Grant said. “I challenge (Mr Gibson) to answer my questions. What was the scheduled date of completion for that building? I think it’s ridiculous for it to take that long. Look at the (Princess Margaret Hospital) Critical Care Block, which is a mammoth building and that is now finished –  that speaks volumes of (HIBI’s) non-performance.”

Comments

B_I_D___ says...

"Political Expedience'...that's the best they could come up with? Someone who was doing what is apparently the norm with most government contracts in bloating the contract after the fact to get as much money out of the treasury as possible. So when they get called on it and fired, they blame it on politics. Pretty pathetic.

Posted 1 May 2014, 12:03 p.m. Suggest removal

realfreethinker says...

when will shame gibson answer a question directly rather than claim the fnm did it first. he is like a little child

Posted 1 May 2014, 1:05 p.m. Suggest removal

proudloudandfnm says...

Shane's ignorance on show for the world to see again...

Posted 1 May 2014, 1:20 p.m. Suggest removal

PKMShack says...

They get what they voted for, a worthless government with the same old folks up to the same old tricks, thanks to the dedicated color voters, next time us your brain and not your t-shirt, tv, 100.00, stove, kalik, loud music, etc

Posted 1 May 2014, 2:41 p.m. Suggest removal

John says...

Let me see If I get 'it' right. The first building was to be built under a contract of 5.9 million. The first contractor had cost overruns and inefficiencies that pushed the price to 15. million. The contract was then terminated and a second contractor completed the building for an additional $5 million bringing the total cost of construction to $20 million. So how did a building originally valued at under $6 million come to now value $20 million? Did the government build in the inefficiencies, corruption and incompetence of the first contractor into the contract for the second building? Now will he complete a $6 million building for $20 million or will cost overruns push the price tag to $60 million? Then there was also a charge of some $7 million the government had to pay in interest, plus court ordered costs to the first contractor for terminating the first contract. wake up Bahamas!

Posted 1 May 2014, 6:17 p.m. Suggest removal

newcitizen says...

We could follow the money and see exactly where is went, but the government won't let us see how they are actually spending our money. Taking an extra $14 million on the first building went so well and without any question that they are now planning on taking the $14 million up front and seeing just how much they can raise that afterwards without anyone questioning them.

This is government corruption at it's finest.

Posted 2 May 2014, 11:24 a.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment