Were values trampled while constructing a new order?

March 13, 2010 by Edmund Gall

The Hon. Prime Minister, Patrick Manning, has been quoted today in the press as saying his government is continuing to create a 'new order' in the construction sector that gives citizens value for money. To quote the Hon. PM ('PM hammers contractors', Trinidad Express, Sat 13 Mar 2010):

'The Government believes that the country has not been getting, for the money spent, a proper return on that investment. We are not getting the projects on time and within cost. And it is not the agencies, it is the construction sector and the way they conduct their business that has led to this in very large measure... As a consequence, the Government is not going to stop until a new order is brought about in the construction sector. That is what we owe the people of Trinidad and Tobago... This country must get value for money and it matters not, how powerful those who are against us are. They spent money, they do all kinds of things I understand, including influencing journalists. They do all kinds of things in trying to get the point of view across that may or may not be correct. The Government subscribes to right and wrong and truth. And the Government is going to continue to pursue a course of action designed to ensure integrity in the construction sector.'

Value for money is a worthy goal. However, one wonders if this goal was set after the government's flagship International Waterfront Complex (IWC) project was approved, especially since, according to Afra Raymond:

The IWC's feasibility study excluded the price of the land consumed, leading to an artificially lowered break-even rental rate
The project was approved even though the artificially-lowered rental rate was still higher than the market rental rates for commercial property in Port of Spain, which means the loan used to build it would never have been fully covered by rental income (and, thus, likely to be subsidised by tax revenue)
The IWC is only 20% occupied at an unknown rental rate to tax payers
The government has yet to respond to Raymond's challenge that it would've been more cost-feasible to continue to rent property at existing rates for state offices rather than build commercial properties under UDeCOTT (since the average break-even rents exceeded the average market rates for existing state-rented property by a factor of three).

Just because a project is brought in within budgeted time and cost doesn't mean you got value for money - especially if the feasibility study that led to the budgeted targets involved wrong calculations.

Since the PM has repeated elsewhere in the press today that UDeCOTT never had 'carte blanche' approval to spend tax revenue, and was always accountable to its line Minister, the Minister of Planning, and the Finance Minister, then did they uphold this goal of 'value for money' when they approved the IWC?

In effect, did government trample on their 'value for money' ideals in their desire to break the local construction sector's alleged power?

Bookmark/Search this post with: