Tweet
North Coast Highway
Ken Chaplin
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The permanent secretary in the Ministry of Housing, Transport, Water and Works, Alwin Hales, has responded to the column of December 19, 2006 "Ministry to investigate charges of inequitable approach to marl deal" with respect to the North Coast Highway Improvement Project.
In a letter to the editor dated May 18, Mr Hales said that the article asserts that "in May of last year D & K Farms expressed surprise to the project manager, E PIHL & SONS AS, that it was made to understand that the quality of limestone which the company has available does not meet the standard required for use on the North Coast Highway Improvement Project".
The article further states, said Mr Hales, that "the response from the project manager was that only one marl pit complied with the specifications for the project." Mr Hales continued: "I am unsure as to whether it was Mr Chaplin or D & K Farms who got a response indicating that only one marl pit met the required specifications; what I do know is that our consultant, Nicholas O'Dwyer & Co, reviewed a submission made by D & K Farms and subsequently advised that the materials from D & K Farms would meet the requirements for the Highway Project's sub base.
"Further, the contractor, E PIHL & SONS AS, did engage D & K Farms in discussions re obtaining marl from their pit; those discussions ended with the contractor concluding that the potential business relationship would not be feasible as the marl pit's location would prove prohibitive.
"Mr Chaplin's point that the 'grant of preferential treatment to an exclusive supplier of material in matters involving the government as a contracting party, must be done with openness and accountability without discrimination' is well made, except that the government has no input, and indeed, contractually, cannot intervene in the selection process in terms of entities with which the contractor does business. The government's input here is to ensure that all materials utilised on the project conform to the technical specifications of the contract. I must point out that E PIHL & SONS was awarded the contract as a result of a competitive tendering process. This puts the onus on the bidders to source the parties with whom they will collaborate or contract to be able to make a competitive bid. Such parties include bankers, hoteliers, material suppliers and equipment operators.
"Once the contractor's bid has been accepted by the Ministry, it would be improper for the Ministry or the National Works Agency to intervene to direct the contractor as to whom they procure goods and services from. Indeed, such an action could result in claims from the contractor leading to additional costs.
" Given the terms and conditions of our contract with E PIHL & SONS, I am not sure what it is Mr Chaplin would wish the contractor general to investigate; in any event, D & K Farms does have its right to make a representation to the contractor general if they feel that they have been wronged by the Ministry. The Ministry oversees several projects costing billions of dollars each year and we try our best to observe the highest standards of probity and transparency at all times. This particular situation concerning D & K Farms is no exception to that principle and we can only pledge our commitment to continuing on that path."
Replying to Mr Hales' letter D & K Farms said:
. The permanent secretary confirmed in his letter of May 18 that D & K Farms can supply material which meets the requirement of the highway. The final paragraph of the letter is instructive.
. A letter from D & K Farms dated May 29, 2006 to Mr Gerd Jarchow, then Head of the European Union in Jamaica, indicated the source of the information that D & K Farms did not qualify.
. D & K Farms' material was found to be of a superior quality when used by the National Works Agency for road construction in the area.
. Further, a letter from E PIHL & Sons to the permanent secretary dated June 1, 2006 stated that only one marl pit qualified.
. A letter from the permanent secretary dated May 18, 2007 to the editor of the Observer for the first time makes any suggestion about feasibility based upon the marl pit's location.
. On October 6, 2006, D & K Farms advised the contractor that its marl pit was nearer to the project than that of the present exclusive supplier.
It turns out to be not true that D & K Farms was unable to supply material to meet the specifications as was being said all along. Neither is it true for the contractor to say that all pits, except one, failed to meet the specifications. It is my view that because the government cannot intervene in the contractual process, it is important that contractors act fairly at all times.
In the final analysis, there is no reason for D & K not being selected to supply marl. D&K Farms has asked the contractor general to investigate the matter and I am looking forward to the report.
Ken Chaplin
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The permanent secretary in the Ministry of Housing, Transport, Water and Works, Alwin Hales, has responded to the column of December 19, 2006 "Ministry to investigate charges of inequitable approach to marl deal" with respect to the North Coast Highway Improvement Project.
In a letter to the editor dated May 18, Mr Hales said that the article asserts that "in May of last year D & K Farms expressed surprise to the project manager, E PIHL & SONS AS, that it was made to understand that the quality of limestone which the company has available does not meet the standard required for use on the North Coast Highway Improvement Project".
The article further states, said Mr Hales, that "the response from the project manager was that only one marl pit complied with the specifications for the project." Mr Hales continued: "I am unsure as to whether it was Mr Chaplin or D & K Farms who got a response indicating that only one marl pit met the required specifications; what I do know is that our consultant, Nicholas O'Dwyer & Co, reviewed a submission made by D & K Farms and subsequently advised that the materials from D & K Farms would meet the requirements for the Highway Project's sub base.
"Further, the contractor, E PIHL & SONS AS, did engage D & K Farms in discussions re obtaining marl from their pit; those discussions ended with the contractor concluding that the potential business relationship would not be feasible as the marl pit's location would prove prohibitive.
"Mr Chaplin's point that the 'grant of preferential treatment to an exclusive supplier of material in matters involving the government as a contracting party, must be done with openness and accountability without discrimination' is well made, except that the government has no input, and indeed, contractually, cannot intervene in the selection process in terms of entities with which the contractor does business. The government's input here is to ensure that all materials utilised on the project conform to the technical specifications of the contract. I must point out that E PIHL & SONS was awarded the contract as a result of a competitive tendering process. This puts the onus on the bidders to source the parties with whom they will collaborate or contract to be able to make a competitive bid. Such parties include bankers, hoteliers, material suppliers and equipment operators.
"Once the contractor's bid has been accepted by the Ministry, it would be improper for the Ministry or the National Works Agency to intervene to direct the contractor as to whom they procure goods and services from. Indeed, such an action could result in claims from the contractor leading to additional costs.
" Given the terms and conditions of our contract with E PIHL & SONS, I am not sure what it is Mr Chaplin would wish the contractor general to investigate; in any event, D & K Farms does have its right to make a representation to the contractor general if they feel that they have been wronged by the Ministry. The Ministry oversees several projects costing billions of dollars each year and we try our best to observe the highest standards of probity and transparency at all times. This particular situation concerning D & K Farms is no exception to that principle and we can only pledge our commitment to continuing on that path."
Replying to Mr Hales' letter D & K Farms said:
. The permanent secretary confirmed in his letter of May 18 that D & K Farms can supply material which meets the requirement of the highway. The final paragraph of the letter is instructive.
. A letter from D & K Farms dated May 29, 2006 to Mr Gerd Jarchow, then Head of the European Union in Jamaica, indicated the source of the information that D & K Farms did not qualify.
. D & K Farms' material was found to be of a superior quality when used by the National Works Agency for road construction in the area.
. Further, a letter from E PIHL & Sons to the permanent secretary dated June 1, 2006 stated that only one marl pit qualified.
. A letter from the permanent secretary dated May 18, 2007 to the editor of the Observer for the first time makes any suggestion about feasibility based upon the marl pit's location.
. On October 6, 2006, D & K Farms advised the contractor that its marl pit was nearer to the project than that of the present exclusive supplier.
It turns out to be not true that D & K Farms was unable to supply material to meet the specifications as was being said all along. Neither is it true for the contractor to say that all pits, except one, failed to meet the specifications. It is my view that because the government cannot intervene in the contractual process, it is important that contractors act fairly at all times.
In the final analysis, there is no reason for D & K not being selected to supply marl. D&K Farms has asked the contractor general to investigate the matter and I am looking forward to the report.
Comment