You are here

Bridgeman’s defends Cabo Star deal

Friday, December 8, 2017
Vice president of Bridgeman’s Andrew Purdey

Bridgeman’s Services Group is defending itself against statements made in Parliament by Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley saying they could not “believe these statements are being made after all the work that has gone into determining the facts of the procurement process.”

Bridgeman’s Vice President Andrew Purdey has also disclosed that Bridgeman’s originally offered the Cabo Star to the Port at a cost of US$18,500 per day for three years and the Ocean Flower at a daily rate of US$17,000 for three years. But the offers were “scrapped by the Port for a short one-year term.”

The one-year lease for the Cabo Star is at a daily rate of US$22,000 and the Ocean Flower 2 was originally contracted at a daily rate of US$26,000 that contract was subsequently cancelled.

Responding to questions in the Parliament on Wednesday, Rowley said the contract for the Cabo Star was made “under duress—meaning that pertinent information was hidden from the Port and the same thing was done with the Ocean Flower 2 by the same company.”

The Prime Minister said “pertinent information” had been withheld in a “deliberate way, so as to facilitate the selection of the Cabo Star.”

In response, Bridgeman’s Vice President Andrew Purdey told the T&T Guardian: “It is truly disheartening after all we’ve been through to read this today. It’s an absolutely hopeless situation.”

He said the company had “volunteered at every request, by every authority, to show up and provide detailed factual accounts of every contact with the Port Authority as it relates to the two ships we have under contract. We could not have been more transparent, and to now see these media statements. We solved an emergency situation and took a huge financial risk in the process to deliver ships for the seabridge problem, and this is what we get in return.”

He said it was “categorically inaccurate and false that Bridgeman’s purposely withheld any information. We responded to an emergency situation presented to us by the port, everyone with authority at the port and its board was very well informed and we proceeded in alignment with the contracts in place.”

Purdey said: “the Port selected the two ships with all of the pertinent and technical information they asked for, never was any information withheld.”

He said they were requested by the Port to submit a conditions survey and financial statements, which they did. Those tenders were subsequently scrapped and a Cabinet committee has now been mandated to look for a ferry. (RS)


User comments posted on this website are the sole views and opinions of the comment writer and are not representative of Guardian Media Limited or its staff.

Guardian Media Limited accepts no liability and will not be held accountable for user comments.

Guardian Media Limited reserves the right to remove, to edit or to censor any comments.

Any content which is considered unsuitable, unlawful or offensive, includes personal details, advertises or promotes products, services or websites or repeats previous comments will be removed.

Before posting, please refer to the Community Standards, Terms and conditions and Privacy Policy

User profiles registered through fake social media accounts may be deleted without notice.