Politicians should not be judged by the standards of everyday life. They should be held to higher ones, because it is in their power to make much more damaging mistakes than most people can. Even more so when they know the system and claim responsibility for “good governance.”
The title of this article is a direct quote from Dr Rowley’s speech in Parliament in October 2009 in his attack on what he claimed were Udecott’s flawed procurement processes.
The Prime Minister has boasted of his track record as Housing Minister on many occasions. Therefore, he is not a stranger to the housing policy, procurement rules, Cabinet oversight requirements, Housing Development Corporation operating rules and the challenges of project financing. Indeed, he is intimately associated with the construction industry starting with his tenure as manager of National quarries in the ’80s. He was the vocal mouthpiece for local contractors in 2008-10 against foreign contractors, Chinese contractors in particular, and the chief prosecutor of what he claimed to be bid rigging in the award of construction contracts by state boards.
Dr Rowley had no hesitation in removing at least two boards at the Port and implementing an inter-ministerial team to ensure that the “inequities” in the ferry acquisition process were “corrected.” At least two public servants were thrown to the wolves. Is there a difference with the HDC-CGGC contract because a friend is Chairman of HDC?
HDC is a statutory corporation established by Act #24 2005. Its mission is to provide affordable shelter and associated community facilities for low and middle-income persons and to carry out the broad policy of the Government in relation to housing. This has been done by outsourcing its construction activity to outside contractors.
Under Section 12 of the Act, the Minister may give to the Board directions in writing of a specific or general nature to be followed in the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers under this Act, with which the Board shall comply. Section 21 gives the HDC wide powers of action but requires the Board to “immediately give written notice of the particulars of the proposed activity to the Minister.”
It appears that a “framework agreement” was signed with CGGC in July 2018. This was only disclosed at the signing of the final contract after a year of negotiation in May 2019. In accordance with Section 21 and standard practice, both the framework agreement and the contract would have required Cabinet approval on each occasion, especially since separate financial arrangements were required.
This means that Cabinet approval ought to have been sought by the requisite line minister in 2018 for the framework agreement and in 2019 for the contract and the financing terms.
The award of a contract for 5000 houses, (of which the 500 houses is simply the first part) is the largest awarded by the HDC to a single contractor, particularly one with no local construction track record and experience, on state land and fully funded by the state with special concessions. Furthermore, this contract was not the subject of a competitive tender. What is so special about this firm to warrant special concessions not given to other contractors when there is spare capacity in the sector?
Is this award similar to the procurement arrangements for Sandals or the ferries from Austal? And why was the process so different from the process used to award the contract to NHIC under the housing public private partnership (PPP) arrangements? Indeed, the real issue is the procurement process, not the egregious terms in the contract.
The Prime Minister has sought to sweep the discrepancies under the carpet saying “this is nothing to be ashamed of…the system has worked.” On the contrary, the system did not work. As an oversight body Cabinet was in flagrant dereliction of its duty of oversight or complicit in the award of the contract. The media, the JCC and all who raised questions on this contract did their job forcing a retraction.
Mr Imbert’s spin was particularly revealing. He was ‘informed,” at other times he was “advised.” No party to this transaction can be regarded as a credible witness. Given the country’s debt situation and its tight fiscal position, the Finance Ministry approval would have been required for this project and any financing arrangement.
The handling of this HDC/CGGC project exemplifies poor governance and an absence of accountability. As is said in Matthew 12:33 “a tree is known by its fruit.”
And leadership is judged by its results.