UPDATED: Ministry issues statement on work stoppage

8
UPDATED: Ministry issues statement on work stoppage

The Ministry of Infrastructure, Port Services and Transport has issued the statement below regarding the stoppage of works along the Bocage/Sunbilt and Entrepot/Independence City Road Rehabilitation Project:

On October 13 2011, a contract was signed between the Government of Saint Lucia and the contracting firm of Asphalt and Mining St. Lucia Company Ltd for the rehabilitation of the Bocage/Sunbilt and Entrepot/Independence City roads.

The terms of the contract were under a design-build finance arrangement. The contract sum for this project is $9,486,138.98, and it was agreed that the contractor would be paid an interest rate of 5.5% over five years, commencing three months after the issuance of the completion certificate. The original completion date was set for October 2012.

The contractor received an advance payment certificate of $1,786,651. From the $1.7 million in advance, the Government has recouped $500,000. In essence, the contractor owes the Government over $1,200,000 in advances.

The contractor also received a mobilisation fee of $675.000. As a result, before any work commenced, the contractor received over $2.3 million in advance payments and mobilisation.

It must be noted that the issuance of the advance payment certificate was not accompanied by the requisite authority. The Procurement and Stores Regulation – Revised Laws of Saint Lucia, Section 21, Chapter 15:01 states: “No advance payments other than a mobilisation fee may be paid on any contract without the written approval of the Director of Finance and Planning”. There is no evidence of any such approval.

The Government, through the Ministry of Infrastructure, Port Services and Transport has fulfilled all of its responsibilities to the contractor including the approval all verified certificates when they become due. The Government therefore cannot be held accountable for the current status of this stalled project and the great inconvenience that it has caused.

In an effort to ensure the completion of this project at the soonest, the Ministry of Infrastructure, Port Services and Transport has been in discussion with its technical officers and the attorney general to chart a way forward.

(0)(0)

No posts to display

8 COMMENTS

  1. Some people are conveniently being dump. Rather than asking for an explanation from the former minister of Communications and Works and the named contractor we resort chastising Peep and asking moronic questions.
    The minister should tell us what are the ministry's plans for completing the project. Dumping the contract in the AG's lap is not sufficient.Clearly this previous arrangement is comical exploiting the country and grossly inappropriate.
    The terms and conditions of that contract is pregnant with borball and all the other adjectives to describe the former Works minister and that company. From the time that company surfaced in this country everything they are involved in has the finger prints of the Guy on it.Its always the same cocomakak from registration to the execution of works.
    Lets stop playing party hack according to the biggest party hack in the country an lets have an objective analysis of the situation or else shut.

    (0)(0)

  2. phillip pierre calls this piece of confusion(actually dumb piece of writing)the statement he promised to "give shortly"
    A few questions:
    (1)Why didn't the contractor carry out the contractual obligations?
    (2)What part of the road(if any)was completed?
    (3)Why was there the need to recoop $500,ooo From the contractor?
    (4)In charting the way forward,does that include getting a new contractor?
    (5)Did Sylus Wilson(executive assistant/consultant to Phillip Pierre)write this ?

    (0)(0)

  3. something is missing in this article. It confuses me. Watz the pt. to this statement? How does this statement help us understand why the contractor is doing absolutely no work? Why is the gov't not doing anything. Advance or no advance the work to be done on the signed contract is not finish. If givin the advance was against the law then take someone to court and get the road finished.

    (0)(0)

  4. And.....why isnt the contra tor doing the project, were any materials bought with the money...if the eork never commenced sue him and get another contractor.....seems to me the same compzny they wanted to do tne ajrport or port castries?

    (0)(0)

  5. Incomplete story!! Why does the contractor owe the government? When did the contractor receive the advance payment? If the government made an advanced payment why does the contractor now owe the government when no mention has been made about the balance of the $9.4M owed the contractor. And what were the terms of the advance payment by the government to the contractor?

    This story creates more confusion after reading it.

    (0)(0)

  6. Pipe that's the statement you going to give shortly.What is in that shitt written there.WHAT IS THE POINT THERE.???/

    (0)(0)

Comments are closed.