JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Monday, July 28, 2025

$100M HDC Trestrail project stalls as contractor flagged for structural defects

... gets more jobs under Works Ministry

by

Joshua Seemungal
638 days ago
20231029

Se­nior Mul­ti­me­dia Re­porter

joshua.seemu­n­gal@guardian.co.tt

The mul­ti-mil­lion-dol­lar Tre­strail Hous­ing De­vel­op­ment Cor­po­ra­tion (HDC) project has stalled af­ter con­struc­tion firm Ricky Raghu­nanan Com­pa­ny Lim­it­ed was flagged and di­rect­ed to un­der­take re­me­di­al works for struc­tur­al de­fects.

Two in­de­pen­dent en­gi­neer­ing re­ports found ma­jor is­sues with the con­struc­tion work car­ried out by Ricky Raghu­nanan Com­pa­ny Lim­it­ed on zones D and E-1 of HDC’s Tre­strail 1R de­vel­op­ment.

The in­de­pen­dent en­gi­neer­ing re­port raised con­cerns about the foun­da­tion be­ing un­able to sup­port the ap­plied loads of the two-storey struc­tures and raised is­sues with in­suf­fi­cient or lack of re­in­forced beams among oth­er mat­ters con­trary to in­ter­na­tion­al stan­dards.

Since Ricky Raghu­nanan has been asked to un­der­take re­me­di­al works on the struc­tural­ly flawed con­struc­tion project, the pro­posed 110-apart­ment Tre­strail de­vel­op­ment 1R Project, es­ti­mat­ed at $100 mil­lion, has been left hang­ing.

The HDC is now run­ning more than four years late on its promised de­liv­ery date while some 180,000-plus ap­pli­cants through­out the coun­try are await­ing homes.

The Tre­strail Hous­ing De­vel­op­ment, which start­ed in June 2017, is lo­cat­ed off La Re­source Road in D’Abadie.

Ac­cord­ing to the HDC, 936 res­i­den­tial town­hous­es and apart­ment units were sup­posed to be con­struct­ed in two pack­ages—Pack­age 1R–452 hous­ing units and Pack­age 2–484 hous­ing units.

In Sep­tem­ber 2018, the HDC gave out 80 of the sin­gle-fam­i­ly units.

Oth­er parts of the project re­main in­com­plete, in­clud­ing zones D and E-1 of Pack­age 1R, award­ed by HDC to con­trac­tors Ricky Raghu­nanan Com­pa­ny Lim­it­ed in 2020 un­der a de­sign-build-fi­nance FIDIC con­tract to de­liv­er 110 town­hous­es.

The HDC pur­chased the 128-acre for­mer horse farm es­tate from the Tre­strail fam­i­ly in Sep­tem­ber 2011 for a re­port­ed sum of $77 mil­lion.

Two weeks ago, Op­po­si­tion MP Roodal Mooni­lal called for a probe in­to the stalled project, al­leg­ing that mil­lions of state funds could be wast­ed. He al­so ac­cused the HDC of fail­ing to ex­er­cise its “fidu­cia­ry du­ty” with re­spect to the con­di­tion of about 100 units at the hous­ing project.

Con­trac­tor must bear cost of rec­ti­fy­ing de­fects—HDC

Hous­ing Min­is­ter Camille Robin­son-Reg­is, de­fend­ing the HDC’s po­si­tion, said the con­trac­tor had to fund all re­me­di­al works. She added that the com­pa­ny had not re­ceived any pay­ment for the work done so far.

“The HDC has en­tered in­to a sit­u­a­tion where the con­trac­tor must re­me­di­ate at his own cost, so this talk that Oropouche East is say­ing that the tax­pay­ers will have to pay mil­lions and mil­lions of dol­lars is to­tal­ly fab­ri­cat­ed and to­tal­ly un­true,” Robin­son-Reg­is said in Par­lia­ment dur­ing the 2024 Bud­get de­bate.

In re­sponse to ques­tions from the Sun­day Guardian, the HDC con­firmed that it award­ed a de­sign-build-fi­nance FIDIC con­tract to Ricky Raghu­nanan Com­pa­ny Lim­it­ed in 2020 for the con­struc­tion of 110 town­house units.

The HDC said its board of man­age­ment had con­cerns about cer­tain struc­tur­al is­sues on the project and as a re­sult, com­mis­sioned CEP Lim­it­ed to con­duct a study on the struc­tur­al is­sues af­fect­ing the project.

“The study iden­ti­fied a num­ber of de­fects and, in ac­cor­dance with the em­ploy­ers’ claim of the de­sign-build-fi­nance con­tract, the HDC is en­ti­tled to make a claim for its cost of en­gag­ing an in­de­pen­dent com­pa­ny—CEP Lim­it­ed in re­la­tion to de­fec­tive works. The board and man­age­ment called on the con­trac­tor to rec­ti­fy the de­fects in ac­cor­dance with the method­ol­o­gy out­lined in the CEP re­port. The HDC said it will not take pos­ses­sion of these town­hous­es or pay the con­trac­tor un­til these de­fects are reme­died. No pay­ments have been made to Ricky Raghu­nanan to date,” the HDC’s com­mu­ni­ca­tions de­part­ment stat­ed. The amount paid to CEP Lim­it­ed for its ser­vices, how­ev­er, was not giv­en de­spite be­ing re­quest­ed.

 

How bad was con­struc­tion work at Tre­strail?

Sun­day Guardian ob­tained copies of the in­de­pen­dent en­gi­neer­ing re­ports pre­pared for HDC. The en­gi­neer­ing re­port was sub­mit­ted on Au­gust 30, 2022, by CEP Lim­it­ed en­gi­neers Kern Sub­ar and Hay­ley Chilton and lat­er re­viewed and ap­proved by two se­nior en­gi­neers.

CEP was in­vit­ed by the HDC to pro­vide a struc­tur­al en­gi­neer­ing so­lu­tion for struc­tur­al de­fects ob­served on 11 town­house blocks in zones D and E-1 at HDC’s Tre­strail 1-R Hous­ing De­vel­op­ment.

“The town­house blocks that are the sub­ject of this re­port in zones D and E-1 are in­com­plete and it was ob­served that a num­ber of these town­house blocks in these two zones, which have been con­struct­ed with vary­ing fin­ished floor el­e­va­tions, have ex­pe­ri­enced cracks at the grade change. These blocks are iden­ti­fied by the HDC as 23, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43 and 45,” the re­port stat­ed. The re­port found is­sues with im­posed loads and load com­bi­na­tions, the foun­da­tion and the re­in­forced con­crete first-floor slab.

 

Foun­da­tion

Bear­ing ca­pac­i­ty and set­tle­ment analy­ses car­ried out by CEP sug­gest­ed that the foun­da­tion for some of the town­house blocks would not be able to sup­port the ap­plied loads, mean­ing that ex­ist­ing soil con­di­tions would need to be im­proved to achieve an in­creased bear­ing ca­pac­i­ty and to re­duce the ex­pect­ed set­tle­ment of the struc­ture. It was found that the town­house blocks were un­able to sup­port the ap­plied loads of the two-storey build­ings.

 “The town­house blocks that will re­quire soil im­prove­ment work be­low the sub-sur­face (foun­da­tion) ei­ther whol­ly or par­tial­ly across the build­ing’s foot­print ac­cord­ing to the find­ings of the ge­ot­ech­ni­cal re­port are as fol­lows: 30, 31, 35, 36, 37 and 38.

“Based on our dis­cus­sions with var­i­ous tech­ni­cal pro­fes­sion­als in the con­struc­tion in­dus­try, pres­sure grout­ing is con­sid­ered to be the pre­ferred soil im­prove­ment tech­nique to im­ple­ment for this project,” the re­port stat­ed.

 

Re­in­forced con­crete first floor slab

The re­port found that based on a vi­su­al in­spec­tion of cored con­crete sam­ples of the first-floor slab of Block 35, no re­in­forc­ing bars were ob­served. It al­so found that the con­crete com­pres­sive cylin­der field strength from a sam­ple of a first-floor slab was one-third of the min­i­mum re­quired strength.

“The con­crete sam­ple ex­tract­ed from the first-floor slab of Unit C of town­house Block 35 yield­ed a con­crete com­pres­sive cylin­der field strength of 8.8 N/mm squared which is well be­low the min­i­mum con­crete com­pres­sive cylin­der strength of 28N/mm square at 28 days spec­i­fied on the struc­tur­al draw­ings,” ac­cord­ing to the re­port.

The re­port stat­ed that the al­ter­na­tive cor­ru­gat­ed gal­vanised roof sheet­ing used to sup­port the sus­pend­ed first-floor slab was not a ma­te­r­i­al rec­om­mend­ed for that ap­pli­ca­tion as it lacked the ma­te­r­i­al prop­er­ties for a con­crete bond to be achieved and, there­fore, no struc­tur­al de­sign checks could be per­formed.

“Un­like the com­pos­ite met­al floor deck­ing, the cor­ru­gat­ed gal­vanised roof sheet­ings are smooth and do not have an em­boss­ment pat­tern man­u­fac­tured in­to the sides at reg­u­lar in­ter­vals which will al­low the con­crete to bond with the met­al deck­ing pan­el as the con­crete cures,” CEP’s re­port stat­ed.

It was rec­om­mend­ed by the con­sul­tant en­gi­neer that a load test be car­ried out by an in­de­pen­dent test­ing agency so that a de­ter­mi­na­tion could be made on whether to de­mol­ish and re­build the first-floor slab or not.

 

Im­posed loads and load com­bi­na­tions

The re­port found that loads for light fix­tures and plumb­ing ser­vices were not con­sid­ered in the orig­i­nal de­sign, but were in­clud­ed in the struc­tur­al mod­el and sub­se­quent struc­tur­al de­sign checks pre­sent­ed in the CEP Lim­it­ed re­port. It al­so found that the wall ren­der load, ac­cord­ing to de­sign stan­dards, was not ap­plied in the orig­i­nal de­sign.

 

Ge­ot­ech­ni­cal Re­port

A ge­ot­ech­ni­cal in­ves­tiga­tive re­port was sub­mit­ted by EISL Lim­it­ed on Au­gust 10, 2022, af­ter EISL was in­vit­ed to pro­vide ser­vices by CEP Lim­it­ed. An orig­i­nal ge­ot­ech­ni­cal re­port for the site was car­ried out by Trin­to­plan Con­sul­tants Lim­it­ed in Oc­to­ber 2013. Sun­day Guardian, how­ev­er, did not ob­tain a copy of that re­port.

Ac­cord­ing to EISL’s re­port, the fail­ures ob­served on-site have been known to be as­so­ci­at­ed with non-con­for­mance to ba­sic con­struc­tion meth­ods and qual­i­ty con­trol re­quire­ments as it re­lates to build­ing foun­da­tions.

  “In the case of cut and fill sites, the over­sight of prop­er com­paction pro­ce­dures and the use of in­ap­pro­pri­ate fill ma­te­r­i­al has proven to be the rea­sons for fail­ure … Our desk­top study for the site sug­gests that a con­sid­er­able amount of cut and/or fill ac­tiv­i­ties were car­ried out on the site be­fore con­struc­tion. How­ev­er, no in­for­ma­tion on cut and fill lev­els was ob­tained from the client. Draw­ings and topo­graph­i­cal sur­veys which would usu­al­ly in­di­cate built lev­els and el­e­va­tions could not be ob­tained from the client.

  “From the re­sults of our bear­ing ca­pac­i­ty and set­tle­ment analy­sis, it was de­ter­mined that the foun­da­tions of some of the units will be un­able to sup­port the ap­plied loads of the two-storey struc­tures,” EISL’s re­port stat­ed.

The re­port’s find­ings warned that in­suf­fi­cient bear­ing ca­pac­i­ty can re­sult in gen­er­al shear fail­ure–a rup­ture of un­der­ly­ing soil fol­lowed by bulging of soil sur­face around the foot­ing; lo­cal shear fail­ure–a fail­ure pat­tern ob­serv­able on­ly im­me­di­ate­ly be­low the foot­ing; and/or punch­ing shear fail­ure–a lo­cal shear fail­ure that could oc­cur around con­cen­trat­ed loads or col­umn heads.

To avoid these pos­si­ble out­comes, EISL rec­om­mend­ed im­prove­ment of the ex­ist­ing soil con­di­tions via grout­ing (the in­jec­tion of ce­ment or chem­i­cal grout in­to the soil to fill voids), soil/ce­ment sta­bil­i­sa­tion or mi­cro-pil­ing to in­crease the den­si­ty of the soil.

EISL’s re­port stat­ed that its en­gi­neers in­ves­ti­gat­ed dam­age to many of the build­ing clus­ters where ver­ti­cal and di­ag­o­nal cracks with­in the front and back walls oc­curred. It found that the cracks ap­peared to be re­lat­ed to build­ing dead load con­di­tions.

 

 “1) It was ob­served that wa­ter was pond­ing near the foun­da­tion of town­house Block 37.

 

  2) There was ev­i­dence of un­even set­tle­ment of the soil sup­port­ing the town­house struc­tures. The set­tle­ment was ev­i­dent by the pres­ence of ver­ti­cal cracks, pre­dom­i­nant­ly at the grade changes of the town­house blocks, stepped cracks and di­ag­o­nal cracks ob­served in­ter­nal­ly and ex­ter­nal­ly

 

  3) The ex­posed fill lay­er be­neath the dri­ve­way slab of town­house block 37 showed that the fill does not ap­pear to be well-com­pact­ed as rec­om­mend­ed in the ge­ot­ech­ni­cal re­port (orig­i­nal),  “the re­port’s field in­ves­ti­ga­tions found”.

 

Raghu­nanan: We didn't do shod­dy work, it's just some lit­tle re­pairs

Con­trac­tor Ricky Raghu­nanan con­firmed that he has re­ceived no pay­ment to date as it is a fi­nance-and-build project. He said the com­pa­ny has not hand­ed over the project yet, adding that they put up their own mon­ey for the work done so far. He said it was not an is­sue. It is just a mat­ter of him start­ing back the job to fin­ish it. How­ev­er, he could not give an es­ti­mat­ed com­ple­tion date for the project.

“It’s not an is­sue with them. It’s just for us to fin­ish up what we have to do and hand it over. It’s not a sto­ry, bud­dy. It’s some­thing like you buy a car from a bank and when you pay off the bank, you get the ve­hi­cle in your name. So once we fin­ish it and hand it over to HDC, then they could do any­thing.

“You should dri­ve on the project and see it, then talk. It’s just some lit­tle re­pairs. That’s all we have to do. The work was nev­er shod­dy or any­thing like that. We have plen­ty fin­ished al­ready, but you have to fin­ish every­thing be­fore you hand it over. It’s about two or three build­ings that have to be hand­ed over be­fore we fin­ish every­thing. When you do­ing a big project like that, you will have lit­tle re­pairs to do,” Raghu­nanan said.

Con­trac­tor gets jobs from the Works Min­istry

Al­though flagged for struc­tur­al de­fects on the Tre­strail project, Raghu­nanan Lim­it­ed con­tin­ues to be award­ed con­tracts by the Works Min­istry

The award of the first con­tract came eight months af­ter be­ing asked to rem­e­dy the de­fects.

Mean­while, the com­pa­ny has since been award­ed at least four more con­tracts by the State worth more than $7.4 mil­lion through the Min­istry of Works and Trans­port–Three High­way Di­vi­sion projects in 2023 worth $4.3 mil­lion were award­ed to Ricky Raghu­nanan on May 24, Sep­tem­ber 7 and Sep­tem­ber 20, and one drainage con­tract was award­ed on Sep­tem­ber 22, 2023, worth $3.14 mil­lion.

The con­tracts were award­ed by lim­it­ed bid­ding where­by a list of com­pa­nies to be in­vit­ed to sub­mit bids is not de­ter­mined by pre­qual­i­fi­ca­tion but through mar­ket re­search.

The Sun­day Guardian reached out to Works and Trans­port Min­is­ter Ro­han Sinanan and the Works and Trans­port Min­istry’s com­mu­ni­ca­tions de­part­ment on Thurs­day and Fri­day to ask whether there is any com­mu­ni­ca­tion be­tween min­istries or gov­ern­ment agen­cies when a con­trac­tor is flagged for sub­stan­dard work and is un­der con­sid­er­a­tion to do work for an­oth­er min­istry.

The Sun­day Guardian want­ed to find out whether, in light of con­cerns over the Tre­strail Project, the min­is­ter is con­fi­dent about the qual­i­ty of work that Ricky Raghu­nanan Com­pa­ny Lim­it­ed can de­liv­er.

How­ev­er, the min­istry has not yet re­spond­ed to the Sun­day Guardian.

Com­pa­nies owned by Ricky Raghu­nanan have re­ceived con­tracts from the Min­istry of Works and Trans­port in the past. Among them, in ear­ly 2015, Ricky Raghu­nanan Scaf­fold­ing Con­tract­ing Lim­it­ed re­ceived two con­tracts from NID­CO worth $3.4 mil­lion for im­prove­ment Works to a re­tain­ing wall for Pi­p­i­ol Road Ex­ten­sion in Can­taro Vil­lage and the con­struc­tion of a 110m re­in­forced con­crete wall at Le Buoys Ravine in Care­nage.

In 2017 and 2018, Ricky Raghu­nanan Com­pa­ny Lim­it­ed and Kall Co Lim­it­ed re­paired land­slides along the La­dy Young Road and North Coast roads. Both com­pa­nies were paid $2.7 mil­lion by the Min­istry of Works and Trans­port.

Min­is­ter Sinanan said in re­sponse to ques­tions raised in the Sen­ate about hir­ing Raghu­nanan Lim­it­ed in Ju­ly 2018 while over­see­ing land­slide work along the La­dy Young, “Our pol­i­cy now is clear, un­less the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al is­sues a di­rec­tive that the Min­istry is not to deal with con­trac­tors, we have to deal with con­trac­tors.”

In May 2019, the com­pa­ny re­ceived a con­tract from the MOWT for the hire of me­chan­i­cal equip­ment/ve­hi­cles ‘as and when re­quired’ for one year.

How the Pro­cure­ment Act will pro­tect tax­pay­ers

Pres­i­dent of the Joint Con­sul­ta­tive Coun­cil for the Con­struc­tion In­dus­try (JCC) Fazir Khan said while the JCC can­not com­ment specif­i­cal­ly on the project, the coun­cil is not aware that a state-wide pol­i­cy for ad­dress­ing con­trac­tors’ eval­u­a­tion and per­for­mance ever ex­ist­ed.

“In our opin­ion, a pol­i­cy would not have been dif­fi­cult to de­vel­op but im­ple­men­ta­tion across hun­dreds of gov­ern­ment agen­cies and spe­cial pur­pose com­pa­nies would have been hard to im­ple­ment. Not on­ly that, the ef­fi­ca­cy of such a sys­tem would have been lim­it­ed with­out leg­is­la­tion that con­tains puni­tive ac­tion for trans­gres­sors.  How­ev­er, with the op­er­a­tional­i­sa­tion of the Pub­lic Pro­cure­ment and Dis­pos­al of Pub­lic Prop­er­ty Act of 2015 (as amend­ed), such a pol­i­cy is no longer nec­es­sary,” Khan said.

He said with the es­tab­lish­ment of the pro­cure­ment de­pos­i­to­ry, all sup­pli­ers and con­trac­tors are man­dat­ed to reg­is­ter elec­tron­i­cal­ly and up­date the nec­es­sary in­for­ma­tion to keep their reg­is­tra­tion alive. The JCC pres­i­dent said once pre-qual­i­fied, con­trac­tors can be used by any procur­ing agen­cies.

“The new leg­is­la­tion al­so has man­dates for per­for­mance re­view and pos­si­ble dis­qual­i­fi­ca­tion by any procur­ing en­ti­ty based on poor per­for­mance or oth­er rea­sons as pre­scribed in the act. If this hap­pens, the dis­qual­i­fied con­trac­tor can­not be used by any oth­er state agency or procur­ing en­ti­ty. Once the sys­tem is op­er­at­ed prop­er­ly un­der the new leg­is­la­tion, with the in­de­pen­dent over­sight by the OPR, there is built-in trans­paren­cy and cross-sec­tor in­for­ma­tion flow, which will ob­vi­ate the need for any oth­er pol­i­cy that re­lates to con­trac­tor per­for­mance and across-the-board de-reg­is­tra­tion,” Khan stat­ed.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored