The 2016 Auditor General Report has found that the $62.9 million project aimed at rehabilitating the Kato airstrip has been delayed. But more worrying is that it has also been found that there is a looming environmental disaster and danger to residents of the area, caused by improperly stored toxic chemicals intended to be used in the project.
A view of a pristine river in Kato
It is understood that a physical verification of the lagging project was carried out on July 3, 2017. In his report, Auditor General Deodat Sharma noted that while the advance bond was still valid, no works or mobilisation had been started. The physical verification also revealed huge quantities of bituminous chemicals being stored in perforated and leaking drums.
Bitumen is a black substance composed of hydrocarbons which can be derived from petroleum distillation residue or are naturally obtained. It is solid, semi-solid or vicious and is primarily used in the paving of roads.
Kato, located in Potaro-Siparuni region, is well known for its exceptional beauty, pristine waterfalls and tourism potential. But according to the Auditor General, the improperly stored bituminous chemicals will result in environmental issues if it comes into contact with the community’s waterways or wells.
Ministry take no responsibility
In its response to the Auditor General’s findings, the Public Infrastructure Ministry threw the blame at the contractor. According to the Ministry, the drums of bitumen are the property of the contractor and its storage is thus the entity’s responsibility.
However, the Ministry admitted that it was notified subsequent to the drums being stored on the site that some were punctured. It noted that this most likely happened during transportation.
“However, the Ministry would raise this issue with the contractor,” the Ministry stated in response. “The leak was later contained by covering with sand and it was reported that there are no other leaking drums. We do acknowledge the grave environmental implications and the potential of the pollution of waterways. However, we believe that the mitigation measures will adequately contain the leak and prevent seepage into the ground or surface water.”
In its recommendations, the Auditor General urged that all bituminous material be properly stored in order to avoid spillage.
The Kato project is part of a larger multimillion-dollar project to build and upgrade Hinterland/Coastal airstrips. Some $241.5 million was allocated to complete the Mahdia airstrip, as well as to rehabilitate the Kato, Eteringbang, Annai, Paramakatoi, Kurupung, Kopinang and Monkey Mountain airstrips.
A supplementary allocation of $110 million was also issued, bringing the total revised allocation to $351.5 million. According to the Auditor General, $310.4 million was expended as of December 31, 2016.
Delay
The contract itself was signed on October 10, 2016 and gave the contractor a 40-week timeframe for completion and a defects liability period of 12 months. A defects liability period is supposed to ensure that contractors can remedy any defective work following the completion of a project.
The works were supposed to comprise of clearing vegetation and debris from areas within the airstrip and excavation of soft spots, supplying and replacing granular sub base material. In addition, they were supposed to compact the bitumen and apply a double bituminous surface treatment (DBST).
In addition, the contractor was supposed to grade and compact the runway shoulder and install a wind sack. As at December 31, 2016, $22.9 million in total was paid to the contractor. In its response to the Audit Office’s comments about the delays, the Ministry noted that the contractor presented a work plan stipulating that the Kopinang airstrip would be worked on first, then Kato.
The Ministry noted that while its initial assessment backed this plan, the onset of rainy season threw a wrench in the plans. It noted that the rain made the trail impassable and the contractor’s request for an extension up to October 30, 2017, was approved. It admitted that while the advance payment was not recovered, the payment bond was still in effect.
The Auditor General recommended that the Ministry explain why no action was taken against the contractor for not proceeding with the work. It also requested copies of the Advance Payment Bond and Performance Bond be submitted for audit examination.
