Works and Infrastructure Minister Dr Surujrattan Rambachan says he will no longer be entertaining questions on the subject of interference in National Infrastructure Development Company (Nidco) board-level decisions. Rambachan is also refusing to directly comment on the questions regarding any collusion with second ranked bidder for the Curepe Interchange Project, Lutchmeesingh Transport Company (LTC).
The Sunday Guardian was informed that days before Nidco cut ties with international construction giant Vinci Construction Grands Projets, the Nidco board met at its planned September 4 session but two days earlier, on September 2, held an impromptu session which excluded Nidco President Dr Carson Charles. When asked if he attended a meeting with Nidco’s board on September 2, Rambachan again said he was not answering any questions about the issue.
“I have said before that I have no comment to make on this issue anymore,” Rambachan said yesterday. When asked about the speculation of collusion between him and LTC, Rambachan chuckled. “Collusion? That is a laugh. I have made it very clear that Nidco evaluation team makes recommendations to the board, and it is the board that awards the contracts,” he said.
When pressed further about his alleged meeting with the Nidco board on September 2, Rambachan said: “Anyone can say what they want, I have nothing to say about that.”
Fickle negotiations
The Sunday Guardian obtained copies of correspondence from Nidco to the Ministry of Works and Infrastructure and from Nidco to Vinci, which shows two different pictures. Just weeks after lauding Vinci as the best pick for the multi-million dollar Curepe Interchange project, Nidco made an abrupt about face and dropped the international company from the negotiation process.
In an letter to the ministry’s permanent secretary Isaac James, Charles defends Vinci Construction as the premier choice for the roadworks on August 29, 2014. Charles, in that letter to James, said “for the record,” a joint committee of engineers, technical evaluators and attorneys concluded that Vinci “ranked as the first bidder, notwithstanding the fact that their bid price was higher than those of the two other bidders.”
Charles also detailed meetings with Vinci, saying that the international construction company dropped its bid price twice in order to remain competitive. According to the letter, Vinci’s initial tender price stood at $522 million and after negotiations dipped to $469 million. After further negotiations, it dropped further to $454 million and then to $442 million.
“This may be considered from an engineering point of view to be relatively close to the Revised Engineer’s Estimate of $391, considering that an additional $17 million is required to meet the Employers Requirements (thus taking the estimated cost to approximately $408 million),” the letter stated.
However, the Sunday Guardian learned that days later, after the Independence day holiday weekend, the Nidco board called an impromptu meeting on September 2, despite having an official board meeting carded for September 4. It was between those two meetings that the tone of the discussion with Vinci Construction changed.
After several negotiations, Vinci offered $442,101060 which distanced the company’s ranking from its closest competitor, Lutchmeesingh Transport Corporation (LTC) by four points instead of the initial two point difference. With the new offered price, Vinci’s overall score moved from 92.68 to 94.98, while LTC scores remained at 90.75.
Days after the two board meetings and despite Vinci’s improved ranking, on September 9, Nidco wrote to Vinci saying it could not be accepted and went further to withdraw its own counter-offer, leaving Vinci barred from negotiations and discussions.
“We advise that we are unable to agree to or accept your offer. We further advise that the counter-offer of TT$430,000,000 inclusive of VAT (Value Added Tax) and provisional sums made in our letter of July 3, 2014 is hereby withdrawn and therefore no longer available for acceptance by you,” the letter stated. In addition to that letter, another similar one was sent to Vinci on October 22, from the chairman of Nidco’s Negotiation Committee.
“Nidco wishes to inform you that after consideration of your proposal and several conditional offers received without prejudice, and to all matters which have been presented in the process of negotiations, and in particular. you offer to undertake the works dated 30 July, 2014, Nidco has concluded that it does not anticipate arriving at an agreement with Vinci Construction Grands Projets on price for the execution of the contract,” that letter stated.
Vinci has already spent $10m
The Sunday Guardian was informed that Vinci has already spent approximately $10 million keeping workers and equipment on standby for this project which is already overdue. The project was expected to be awarded in July 2013. Vinci, the Sunday Guardian understands, has already done groundwork and was ready to mobilise when the contract negotiations was dropped.
The Sunday Guardian was also informed that if the tender is quashed and restarted, Vinci will not re-bid for the project because of how this situation was handled. However, the Sunday Guardian was told that Vinci will continue to fight for the project because of the massive financial investments made in the country in the eight years since its first project.
