Thursday, September 2 2010

President of the Trinidad and Tobago Institute of Architects Mark Raymond wrote an article on August 24 that is quite thought-provoking.

He said “the period (recent economic boom) will go down in history as one characterised by a flagrant and arrogant abuse by the State of its powers, monumental squandering of the public purse and the unprecedented deliberate and malicious marginalisation of an essential national resource in the form of the construction sector.”

The last Administration did almost everything secretly. Mega-national projects were presented to the public, usually via media briefings, that Cabinet has decided this or that! There was never any explanation or justification of need nor any public involvement or consultation.

For example, on March 14, 2006 the former Transport Minister Colm Imbert said at an Informational Meeting for the Trinidad Rapid Rail Project (TRRP) at Crowne Plaza that “the Government has decided that the preferred mode of mass transit is rapid rail as it is appropriate at this time to re-introduce rail…and Government believes this … and is committed to fast-track the rapid rail project.”

Sometime around June 2006 the consulting expertise for the TRRP, was taken from the ministry and handed over to the State-owned National Infrastructure Development Company Ltd (Nidco), and the Consultant (PB) was given a sole select contract for the overall sum of $37 million. To date, it is not public knowledge why PB was favoured as the best rapid rail consultant to advise the Government. In November 2007, Government fired PB from the TRRP.

This was all revealed from questions asked in the Senate. Imbert said the contract for the Comprehensive National Transport Study (CNTS) which was awarded to PB in February 2005 and was to be completed by September 2006 had cost $21 million, of which approximately $10 million had been paid. The second rapid rail consultancy was also contracted to PB, was worth $37 million, and $5.5 million had, so far, been paid. I have already written several times about the conflict of interest.

The Senate was simply trying to receive some scientific basis for the decisions being made and these are the types of responses — a series of anecdotal evidence from the minister. The consultant was never permitted to face the public!

I have already written, that despite having such a mega-consultancy for the CNTS, PB sent a series of contracted part-time individual sub-consultants to undertake occasional work on such a major public investment, or put another way, PB had a “pick-up side” to conduct the CNTS. Did PB not have a proper proposal in their tender, which was accepted by Government? Why were they allowed to do their own thing? Who was overseeing them? To date, Government technocrats have not accepted their work, to the best of my knowledge.

Over the years, the Association of Professional Engineers of Trinidad and Tobago (APETT) virtually begged the former minister to bring his experts to explain the project context, to which he steadfastly refused.

Next is the contract to do the planning and preliminary design for the Rapid Rail Project. Over $500 million has been spent on this project and there has still been no justification or explanation of the context in which this project is based. I found out recently that the project management supervisory consultant on behalf of Nidco was paid nearly $100 million! Keep in mind, there is no accepted national transportation plan. Further, while I am sure the Rail Consultant has prepared numerous documents and reports, they have not yet been permitted to face the TT public, except a cursory presentation for environmental approval purposes. We still have no official information about what it will cost to operate and maintain this system, as well as the detailed cost to build it. And we do not know the context in which it will operate, especially in relation to PTSC and maxi-taxis.

I recognise that many local consulting and contracting firms are facing a serious financial situation, not having had new work for more than a year and a half. As far as I am aware, the only firms to receive contracts from Government last year were the foreign companies, and very few local firms were considered as subs to them.

What has also happened is that some of the pioneering local establishments have been bought out in recent times by some of the multi-national firms conducting business here. In fact, one of these foreign firms based here, with obviously a guaranteed work programme, has bought out least three established companies owned and developed by local professionals, including a pioneering consulting mechanical and electrical engineering firm, a human settlement consulting practice, and one of the larger architects firms.

Some might be tempted to argue that some of the highway construction and maintenance work might be sub-standard, requiring unscheduled repair and correction. There is definitely a need for better project planning, quality control, and project supervision and monitoring, but do we have to bring in international firms to do it? Our problems are attitudinal and are nationally systemic, and require serious efforts of determination and commitment.

Can we guarantee that foreigners will do a better job? And should we standby and observe our transportation facilities being planned and developed by others?

Which foreign firm could produce the TT solution that is appropriate for the people of TT? I am not saying that the foreigners should not assist us. But that is just it: they could work with us – not direct us – to determine our future.

Decision-making in mega-investments must not simply be in the hands of the Cabinet of the new Government, but there should be debates on these matters in Parliament. Further, there should be stakeholder consultations. The primary focus of consultation would be on fostering dialogue with and among the stakeholders, with the aim of building consensus with respect to the particular project or plan. The consultation programme must obtain meaningful input from the complete spectrum of affected interests (transport, environment, economy, community).

Open and meaningful communication should be promoted. This would be managed in an organised format that allows all voices to be heard, and which would ensure stakeholders know they have been heard and their opinions matter. The days for somebody deciding what is best for us without our involvement must now be over. The continuing expansive education programme will ensure that.

e-mail: info@ccost.org