With Guyana now on the verge of major development deriving from our oil wealth and massive infrastructural plans, it was welcoming news when Public Works Minister Juan Edghill made it pellucid to contactors that there will be zero tolerance for substandard works.
Over the years, there has been much disappointment with the unbelievable quality of work that is being carried out by some contractors engaged in public infrastructure projects. Most of these projects cost the treasury millions of dollars, and, all around the country, one can point to numerous examples of substandard work for which contractors were paid huge sums.
Therefore, it was welcoming that the Public Works Minister is publicly warning contractors that they would not benefit from a second contract under the Government if their works are found to be substandard.
In many cases of substandard public infrastructure works, very little action is taken against these errant contractors for not meeting their contractual obligations, resulting in them walking scot free. In fact, some persons would even be shocked to learn that these same persons who have done poor work or left work incomplete were awarded additional contracts.
As this publication had said in a previous editorial, year after year, in his report, the Auditor General would highlight a number of examples of substandard or incomplete work in construction projects across the country – whether they be schools, hospitals, roads, bridges etc.
The AG has previously pointed to some instances wherein projects were incomplete or left abandoned, even though contractors were already paid huge sums to do a proper job. Many have asked what actions are being taken against these contractors to recoup these sums of money, or what sort of systems have been put in place to ensure these contracting firms are debarred from bidding for future projects. At several previous sittings of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and regional officials, it was pointed out that, in the past, sums of money were overpaid to contractors in mobilisation fees – which is a fraction of the contractual cost that is paid to the contractor to get his/her equipment to the site where the project is to be implemented. In some cases, sums of money over the standard or required amount are paid to the contractor, and the works are still not completed.
This certainly is unacceptable. And while tax payers have used different forums to complain previously, the relevant agencies have a duty to ensure that public money is well spent and accounted for.
It is clear that, in the past, there were poor monitoring and reporting mechanisms in place to ensure contracting firms carry out works as per contractual agreement. Also, previously, there seemed to be no strict policy to penalise and/or debar contractors for failing to meet their contractual obligations.
After much public criticism, the then Public Infrastructure Ministry had said it is in the process of establishing a database which would keep a track record of the number of projects awarded to local contractors, and their performance with respect to each. It would also be helpful if procuring entities keep a proper record of the performance of companies in regard to projects awarded. This could be used as an effective measure to better inform the process for selecting competent contractors to handle Government projects.
With the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) in place, one had hoped that the relevant mechanisms would have been put in place with the aim of ensuring these lapses are corrected. The PPC would need to re-examine and implement effective measures for blacklisting, so that contractors who are consistently delinquent could face the requisite level of debarment. That said, citizens also have a role to play in ensuring that they get value for money. They should also be encouraged to provide the relevant feedback to the respective authorities in relation to how certain projects are progressing in their communities.
This publication supports Minister Edghill’s decision that a contractor found to have a record of producing poor and incomplete work would not be awarded additional contracts.
