TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
RIPEBREDFRUIT wrote:1 BILLION $$$ is a serious crooked contract that Insults every single one of us as citizens.
considering the other tender was supposedly 400 Million lower and that company had much much more experience with such projects.
Hyperion wrote:waiting for the sycophants to chime in with some lame *ss defense of these corrupt bloodsuckers who just intent on robbing this country blind.
RASC wrote:Hyperion wrote:waiting for the sycophants to chime in with some lame *ss defense of these corrupt bloodsuckers who just intent on robbing this country blind.
Don't expect a peep from them.
UML
ZOOM RADER
DFC
ET AL
Counting their last days.
It's over-They will retreat into hiding only to reemerge post election 2015 with complaints galore.
Mark my words.
De Dragon wrote:RIPEBREDFRUIT wrote:1 BILLION $$$ is a serious crooked contract that Insults every single one of us as citizens.
considering the other tender was supposedly 400 Million lower and that company had much much more experience with such projects.
Wasn't the contract awarded to a consortium of which SIS is a member?
RASC wrote:Hyperion wrote:waiting for the sycophants to chime in with some lame *ss defense of these corrupt bloodsuckers who just intent on robbing this country blind.
Don't expect a peep from them.
UML
ZOOM RADER
DFC
ET AL
Counting their last days.
It's over-They will retreat into hiding only to reemerge post election 2015 with complaints galore.
Mark my words.
UML wrote:is the problem the price? or is it because it was SIS?
do we support our local industry or send our money abroad?
yes I agree that the difference in price is worrying..then you have to consider quality and local employment benefits
SiR8081 wrote:De Dragon wrote:RIPEBREDFRUIT wrote:1 BILLION $$$ is a serious crooked contract that Insults every single one of us as citizens.
considering the other tender was supposedly 400 Million lower and that company had much much more experience with such projects.
Wasn't the contract awarded to a consortium of which SIS is a member?
THIS! I thought SIS bid with a consortium of 3 companies who each paid for tender packages but sent in one bid as a team?
Hearsay/oldtalk > facts
Why SISL got billion-dollar Beetham project
Published:
Sunday, March 16, 2014
A confidential seven-page report, submitted by National Gas Company (NGC) to Energy Minister Kevin Ramnarine details eight reasons why Couva-based Super Industrial Services Ltd (SISL) earned the controversial billion-dollar Beetham Water Recycling Plant project. Ramnarine had mandated NGC to provide a report on the tender and award process amid calls from the Opposition that the massive contract was awarded to a company owned by known government financier, Krishna Lalla.
While Ramnarine verbally presented some of the details within the report during his presentation at Parliament on Friday, the Sunday Guardian obtained a copy of the report which praised SISL for having an overall “superior” proposal. It also compared NGC’s own project estimate of US$149,999,000 to Altatec’s US$95,224,643 and SISL’s US$167,755,329.
One of People’s National Movement (PNM) leader Dr Keith Rowley’s main concerns with the award was that it was given to SISL even though their bid price was much higher than the nearest bidder. The report notes that the price difference between the two bids worked in SISL’s favour. “In post-bid clarifications, Altatec noted several areas where they may seek to revisit the price submitted for example, changes in global steel prices and soil conditions,” the report noted.
This compared poorly with SISL’s bid which, according to the report, already made allowances for the Environmental Impact Assessment and soil conditions. The Couva-based company also committed itself to one variation which would be based on any increase of the global steel prices. The report, which was dated March 13, 2014, arrived at the conclusion that Altatec’s lower bid “contained significantly below market value ‘elements’ which is subject to higher levels of variability in their prices would be expected.”
One of the examples listed in the report states that NGC’s in-house estimate for the pipeline unit rate per meter (supplied and installed) was USD $1,700, SISL bid USD$ 1,339.72 per meter, while Altatec bid at USD $525 per meter. “This rate is considered extremely low when compared with the in-house estimate and significantly increased the risk of variability,” the report stated. (RS)
SISL vs Altatec’s bid
SISL:
1. SISL scored 77.93 per cent in the technical evaluation (54.55 out of 70.00)
2. SISL complied in main with the plant design proposed in the RFP and actually provided a superior design.
3. SISL proposed a superior pipeline methodology.
4. SISL submitted a superior construction programme.
5. SISL information submitted on RO pumps was of superior quality.
6. SISL proposal has greater local content.
7. SISL design team has extensive membrane plant experience.
8. SISL indicated that only if global steel prices changed they may consider applying for a variation in the contract price. SISL confirmed that EIA and soil conditions risks were considered in their bid. Their bid price can be considered firm (apart from variation in world steel prices) having a high degree of confidence and consequently subject to low variability.
Altatec:
1. Altatec scored 52.71 per cent in the technical evaluation (36.90 out of 70.00)
2. Altatec’s deviation in the plant design as proposed in the RFP increased the risks associated with plant maintenance.
3. Altatec failed to provide a detailed pipeline construction methodology even after several requests during the bid clarification exercise.
4. Altatec’s construction programme was not comprehensive.
5. Altatec’s overall price was 46 per cent lower than the in-house estimate, significantly increasing the risk of completing the project within the proposed price.
6. Altatec confirmed three to five per cent of risk contingency in their price, this is extremely low for a design and build project of this type with the likelihood of several request for variation of the contract price (if awarded) via variation orders and the possibility of increased cost during implementation.
7. Altatec identified global steel price increases, variations in the EIA, and soil condition risks as factors which would contribute to price increases. In effect, Altatec has, in fact, signalled its bid price is subject to higher levels of variability resulting in a lower level of confidence in the proposed price.
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-03- ... am-project
....allows for corruption? 
Eight years ago...
PNM approved Beetham Wastewater project
Published:
Sunday, March 16, 2014
RENUKA SINGH
Text Size:
The now controversial Beetham Wastewater Recycling Plant was a project first approved by the People’s National Movement (PNM). A Memorandum of Understanding, obtained by the Sunday Guardian dated January 6, 2006, shows an agreement between the National Energy Corporation of T&T (NEC) and the Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA). Contained within the eight-year-old agreement is a confidentiality clause that bars either party from publicising any portion of the MoU.
“Each party undertakes that all information hereto or hereinafter furnished or made available to any one of them by the other including but not limited to technical information relating to the MoU or any other information which may from time to time be identified by the terms of this paragraph will be kept strictly confidential and will not be disclosed or divulged to any person (other than its representatives) and that it will proceed that its representatives will not disclose or divulge same.
No news, public announcements, advertisement or publicity concerning this MoU shall be made by any of the parties hereto without prior written consent to the other party,” the three-page document states. In the MoU both parties agreed to eight points, but included the need for the “necessary Cabinet approvals.” The Sunday Guardian understands that PNM Cabinet did give its approval back in November 2007 but utilised a marine pipeline through the Gulf of Paria instead of an overland pipeline.
The current contract was awarded to Super Industrial Services Ltd (SISL). When asked about the PNM approval, Opposition leader Dr Keith Rowley confirmed but said it was not the PNM that decided to “inflate the price and give it to SIS.”
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-03- ... er-project
Wastewater worries
By Clarence Rambharat
Story Created: Mar 17, 2014 at 9:05 PM ECT
Story Updated: Mar 17, 2014 at 9:05 PM ECT
Here we go again. Last Friday, the Minister of Energy delivered a seemingly comprehensive denial to Parliament of bid-rigging allegations made by Leader of the Opposition Dr Keith Rowley. These allegations stem from the billion-dollar contract award to Super Industrial Services Ltd (SIS) for the Beetham Wastewater Plant project. To borrow the famous “bikini” quote, what the Minister’s statement revealed was suggestive, what it concealed is vital.
The Minister’s 2,100-word prepared statement makes no reference to searing allegations of conflict of interest levelled against the chairman of the National Gas Company (NGC) by Dr Rowley. The silence is instructive.
In a basic online search, August 2010 press reports name NGC’s chairman as chairman of SIS. Did he resign after his October 2010 appointment to the NGC board? Does his past prevent him for dealing with any matters between NGC and SIS? Was he excluded from the board’s deliberations on the project? And did he or his law firm act at any time for SIS, is there a conflict of interest and was any there a declaration and recusal from NGC matters involving SIS?
Dr Rowley has made an unambiguous allegation of a relationship between NGC’s chairman and SIS. Alongside the facts revealed by the Minister, this is critical to debunking the allegations of bid-rigging. Why was this omitted from the Minister’s report to Parliament?
The NGC and SIS relationship is not new to controversy. A Sunday Express report on June 9, 2013 identified SIS as the successful bidder to build NGC’s proposed $800 million headquarters. NGC denied this and justified the use of NIPDEC for the tender because of its lack of in-house resources to undertake the project. How does NGC now justify the use of its resources to manage procurement in an area — water recycling and wastewater management — that may also be beyond its core competence and in-house capabilities? The headquarters construction project was put on hold and NGC was advised to direct the $800 million to in-house infrastructural projects. Does this water recycling and wastewater project qualify as one of those in-house infrastructural projects?
SIS is also not new to controversy. A December 2013 Public Account Enterprises Committee (PAEC) report on the Estate Management and Business Development Company’s (EMBD) activities under the previous government found a debt write-off of $460,000 owed by Phoenix Welding and Fabrication. The company, an SIS affiliate, was named by TOP leader Ashworth Jack as his employer when questions arose about Jack’s Tobago mansion. And, at a May 2011 hearing, the PAEC found a lack of documentation in the mining of lucrative sandpits by SIS affiliates who were brought into the sandpits by the EMBD after a 2003 Cabinet decision gave EMBD control. The PAEC found no checks and balances at the former Caroni (1975) Ltd sandpits. This was no goldmine, but with heavy demand for sand for construction, it was close enough.
Now the Wastewater Plant allegations fall on extremely fertile ground. Integrity in public life legislation is weak and ineffective. New procurement legislation remains stuck in Parliament. Senator Helen Drayton’s motion on election campaign financing is before the Senate but new laws may not be in place before the next election. The financial sector intercepted 29 suspicious transactions in 2013, a total value of TT$1.12 billion, an average of $40 million per transaction. We do not know who is involved but we know nearly a quarter of the 554 suspicious transactions filed with the Financial Investigations Unit (FIU) in 2013 involved lawyers and other professionals, and senior company officials in the public and private sector. Some involved politically connected persons, possibly kickbacks.
We also knew this NGC story was coming. When NGC advertised the invitation for bids in September 2013, Dr Rowley told Parliament the tender was the construction of the “very latest of the feeding troughs” for one particular company. In answer, NGC said the timeline was adequate, and “as proof” said it had received “many expressions of interest from both local and international entities”. From the Minister’s statement last Friday there were 11 expressions of interest and an extended 14-week period for bids. Why did NGC receive only two bids? Did a two-bid evaluation reduce competition to the point that the winning bid is TT$100 million more than NGC’s in-house estimate? Were potential bidders spooked by the spectre of political preference? Were there early signs that the award was heading to SIS?
NGC must clear its chairman’s good name. We know that Foster Wheeler and Hyflux have strong financial and technical qualifications, expertise, and experience. Foster Wheeler is a well-established global engineering procurement company and Hylux has a track record in Asia for this type of project. We also know NGC’s board is experienced, with a well-recognised water expert and engineering professionals on board, and an experienced solicitor as chairman. The allegation of possible conflicts of interest must be addressed.
All public sector corruption allegations will bring us to that $1.12 billion in financial transactions that local financial institutions refused to process in 2013. Who owns $1.12 billion but cannot satisfy the basic anti-money laundering and disclosure requirements? How much of the $1.12 billion involved political connections? How much involved state companies or public sector projects?
Corruption has no party affiliation. It’s on all sides and that $1.12 billion will not remain idle. It would eventually have made it through the financial system. The allegations made on the Beetham Wastewater Plant project remind us of how those pervasive elements of public sector corruption have created the perfect corruption storm. Strong winds are pounding.
*Clarence Rambharat is a lawyer and a university lecturer
Dizzy28 wrote:Its one thing to be a propaganda machine but at least have the right info nah man. Speak out TT yesterday had the wrong Krishna in their SIS montage
They put Krishna Persad of Mora Ven fame!!!
kurpal_v2 wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:Its one thing to be a propaganda machine but at least have the right info nah man. Speak out TT yesterday had the wrong Krishna in their SIS montage
They put Krishna Persad of Mora Ven fame!!!
Yuhno all them raj does look the same
RIPEBREDFRUIT wrote:Nothing about that contract , nor its process was legit, it was all done to favor the winner, and frustrate all others who tendered.
How the hell do you award a 1 billion dollar contract and give people less than a month to submit when it requires at least 3-6 months to prepare such?
obviously someone had all disclosed information available a few months prior !
Dizzy28 wrote:Its one thing to be a propaganda machine but at least have the right info nah man. Speak out TT yesterday had the wrong Krishna in their SIS montage
They put Krishna Persad of Mora Ven fame!!!
ModMania wrote:Anybody find it odd that the topic of the contract come up and glenn get fired for feeling up breast?
Anil: Rowley had an interest in plant
By Clint Chan Tack Saturday, March 29 2014
SPORTS Minister Anil Roberts yesterday accused Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley of having an interest in the construction of a water recycling plant in Beetham 13 years ago. His claims evoked strident protests from Rowley who denied he had any such interest.
In his contribution to debate on a private motion filed by Rowley on the controversial award of a billion dollar contract to a consortium of companies, which includes Super Industrial Services (SIS), to build, operate and maintain a water recycling plant in Beetham, Roberts asked Rowley to state whether he had any interest in this plant. As Roberts took his seat, Rowley stood up and said, “ I have no interest whatsoever in this plant or any other plant in any part of the world.”
Referring to a Hansard document dated April 28, 2000, Roberts quoted a statement made by Rowley in response to questions from then public utilities minister Ganga Singh during the debate on the award of the Desalcott contract. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar directed Roberts to “get to the point.”
Roberts said in that debate Rowley said as a geologist, one of the services he provided to the public was hydrology. Quoting Hansard, Roberts indicated Rowley said he “happened to accompany a group of local businessmen, investors who sought my services as a geologist.”
Roberts said Rowley indicated then he accompanied those persons to Singh’s office “as they sought to discuss with him (Singh), the potential for private sector investment, with respect to the upgrade of the Sea Lots sewer treatment plant.” As Government MPs expressed shock at Roberts’ statement, he said, “I now understand why we are here.”
Seeking the protection of Speaker Wade Mark and claiming Roberts was imputing improper motives against him, Rowley stood up and replied, “ I have no interest in any water treatment plant.” Saying he had no interest in the plant he mentioned in his motion, Rowley added, “My professional services 13 years ago, do not give me an interest.” As Opposition MPs voiced their support for Rowley, Mark said, “I need no help or assistance. If the member goes in a direction that breaches the Standing Orders, I will intervene.” Mark told Roberts he was coming “very close to infringing the Standing Orders in terms of the conduct of a Member.”
Roberts said while Rowley condemned the plant, the former PNM government sought to approve the construction of this same plant on November 3, 2007, two days before that year’s general election. He said this was reflected in a Cabinet minute on that date and Rowley was a Cabinet minister at that time. Declaring the process to award the contract to the consortium was fair and transparent, Roberts read a letter dated March 20 from Mexican firm Altatech (the losing bidder) which said it was not aggrieved that its bid was rejected.
http://www.newsday.co.tt/politics/0,192585.html
REVO wrote:The Desal plant produces approx. 32iMGD of water daily(soon to be 40iMGD), half of which is utilized within the Point Lisas Estate. Where the rest goes? Yes onto the system which consist of domestic and commercial customers, not to mention through uncontrolled orifices(leaks). Is WASA only paying for what Point Lisas uses? No, they pay for 32iMGD. So it is ah buss financially for WASA. The positive is that it benefits to the citizens. I could live with that. However WASA, I am sure would have to find a way to offset that cost in the future. Perhaps by means of domestic metering and high rates.
Is recycling water to send to Point Lisas financially viable from Beetham? The distance(about 35km) from POS to Point Lisas with the creation of new pipe routes is expensive. Long ago WASA recycled water from the South Waste Water Treatment Plant and sent it to Point Lisas. WASA is about to spend over a billion dollars in revamping the sewer system throughout Trinidad and Tobago with the refurbishment of the San Fernando Waste water treatment plant. Why can't the designers design this plant to recycle water to send to Point Lisas? Wouldn't this be cheaper? Shorter distance(about 16km) and established pipe route.
In my view if we were to recycle water from Beetham Waste water we should condemn the current dump and open an industrial park or commercial centre and use the water there. Developing the land and recycling water might cost over one billion dollars...but what the heck more value for money.
Dizzy28 wrote:Its one thing to be a propaganda machine but at least have the right info nah man. Speak out TT yesterday had the wrong Krishna in their SIS montage
They put Krishna Persad of Mora Ven fame!!!
boxy wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:Its one thing to be a propaganda machine but at least have the right info nah man. Speak out TT yesterday had the wrong Krishna in their SIS montage
They put Krishna Persad of Mora Ven fame!!!
Did you realize you used properganda and FACTS in the same sentence ?????
