Dear Editor,
Reference is made to a story entitled "JDIP gives way to MIDP" published in the Jamaica Observer dated Friday, August 9, 2013.
In the interest of fairness and clarity, I would like to highlight some inaccuracies and seeming distortions in the piece.
Let me start with the paragraph which states:
I am mystified as to the origins of the statement concerning the removal a stipulation in the agreement. The process continues whereby when specified tasks are completed, payment certificates are generated following the verification that work has been satisfactorily done. Let me state categorically that this requirement will continue under the Major Infrastructural Development Programme (MIDP). In fact discussions are taking place with the objective of strengthening this process.
Then comes the curiously worded, "Both Davies and the National Works Agency (NWA) have tried to convince Parliament that they are doing all that is required of them, and that any problem with the payments is due to the delays caused by China Ex-Im Bank's due diligence..."
I am assuming here that this is a reference to the statement I made in Parliament on July 16 in response to allegations from MP Mike Henry that sub-contractors who had worked on JDIP had not been paid for fluctuations. In that statement, I highlighted that:
- The contract pertaining to JDIP was signed among the Ministry of Transport and Works (the owner/client), the National Works Agency (the Engineers) and China Harbour (the contractor)
- There is no direct contractual relationship between the Ministry of Transport, Works & Housing/National Works Agency and the sub-contractors
- Any communication from sub-contractors concerning amounts being queried must follow the appropriate channels, ie to the contractor CHEC and subsequently to the ministry and CHEC
- Two such claims concerning fluctuations have been received thus far from CHEC and they have been honoured.
- Based on the contractual arrangement, the ministry would receive claims for fluctuation from the contractor (CHEC); the ministry has not received any claim subsequent to the two aforementioned.
- The ministry vigorously refutes the assertion made by Mr Henry that "payments, long overdue to Grade 1 Subcontractors for legitimate fluctuations on JDIP contracts, have been purposely delayed by the National Works Agency for the possible purpose of accommodating payments to JEEP contractors".
In relation to Karl Samuda's comments that: "The delays are due to the government's inability to meet its part of the deal", this ministry categorically repudiates any such assertion. In fact, I will go one step further to say that the 15 per cent portion from the Government has always been paid over on a timely basis.
We also take issue with the suggestion that the exploration of another payment arrangement between CHEC and China Ex-Im Bank would be tantamount to removing one of the provisions in place to protect the programme against corruption. The fact is that the system, as it now exists, is not perfect, hence the search for a more efficient way to handle the payment arrangement. As to the correlation between the two things, I stand ready to be enlightened.
Dr the Hon Omar Davies
Minister of Transport, Works & Housing
Clearing the air on JDIP, MDIP
-->
Reference is made to a story entitled "JDIP gives way to MIDP" published in the Jamaica Observer dated Friday, August 9, 2013.
In the interest of fairness and clarity, I would like to highlight some inaccuracies and seeming distortions in the piece.
Let me start with the paragraph which states:
I am mystified as to the origins of the statement concerning the removal a stipulation in the agreement. The process continues whereby when specified tasks are completed, payment certificates are generated following the verification that work has been satisfactorily done. Let me state categorically that this requirement will continue under the Major Infrastructural Development Programme (MIDP). In fact discussions are taking place with the objective of strengthening this process.
Then comes the curiously worded, "Both Davies and the National Works Agency (NWA) have tried to convince Parliament that they are doing all that is required of them, and that any problem with the payments is due to the delays caused by China Ex-Im Bank's due diligence..."
I am assuming here that this is a reference to the statement I made in Parliament on July 16 in response to allegations from MP Mike Henry that sub-contractors who had worked on JDIP had not been paid for fluctuations. In that statement, I highlighted that:
- The contract pertaining to JDIP was signed among the Ministry of Transport and Works (the owner/client), the National Works Agency (the Engineers) and China Harbour (the contractor)
- There is no direct contractual relationship between the Ministry of Transport, Works & Housing/National Works Agency and the sub-contractors
- Any communication from sub-contractors concerning amounts being queried must follow the appropriate channels, ie to the contractor CHEC and subsequently to the ministry and CHEC
- Two such claims concerning fluctuations have been received thus far from CHEC and they have been honoured.
- Based on the contractual arrangement, the ministry would receive claims for fluctuation from the contractor (CHEC); the ministry has not received any claim subsequent to the two aforementioned.
- The ministry vigorously refutes the assertion made by Mr Henry that "payments, long overdue to Grade 1 Subcontractors for legitimate fluctuations on JDIP contracts, have been purposely delayed by the National Works Agency for the possible purpose of accommodating payments to JEEP contractors".
In relation to Karl Samuda's comments that: "The delays are due to the government's inability to meet its part of the deal", this ministry categorically repudiates any such assertion. In fact, I will go one step further to say that the 15 per cent portion from the Government has always been paid over on a timely basis.
We also take issue with the suggestion that the exploration of another payment arrangement between CHEC and China Ex-Im Bank would be tantamount to removing one of the provisions in place to protect the programme against corruption. The fact is that the system, as it now exists, is not perfect, hence the search for a more efficient way to handle the payment arrangement. As to the correlation between the two things, I stand ready to be enlightened.
Dr the Hon Omar Davies
Minister of Transport, Works & Housing
Clearing the air on JDIP, MDIP
-->