Commissioner: NIPDEC responsible for cost overruns

By Charleen Thomas, Newsday

NIPDEC was yesterday blamed for "allowing the runaway train" getting away at the Piarco airport project, because it failed to put measures in place to meaningfully challenge the estimates submitted by Birk Hillman Consultants (BHC), as they related to change orders for variations.

The accusation was made by Victor Hart, a Commissioner in the Piarco Commission of Inquiry into the project, being heard at the Caribbean Court of Justice, Port-of-Spain.

However NIPDEC's General Manager Margaret Thompson said the project was not an "ideal" one and likened NIPDEC's position as contractors, to that of a "hamster in a cage".

Thompson was continuing her evidence yesterday. She was led by attorney Justin Phelps.

Questioned about change orders on the project, Thompson said requests for them were initiated by four persons, the user, the client, contractor and designers (BHC).

She said former minister John Humphrey, as chairman of the inter-ministerial team made requests for change orders, but NIPDEC always confirmed the changes with its client representative, Peter Cateau.

But Thompson said in many instances NIPDEC's management team queried the requests and did not agree with the variations. She said NIPDEC director Trevor Romano would then mandate them to take the orders to the tenders committee, whether they had agreed or not.

She said that was unusual, because usually a recommendation would be taken to the tenders committee. Thompson said in most, if not all of the cases for variations as a result of the change orders, the tenders committee agreed with them.

She said the client, contractors and designers all agreed and seemed to be in accord, while NIPDEC's management team merely processed the change orders, as it was obligated to do under its contract with BHC. She said objections to change orders were based on several factors including technical matters and cost and timing.

She admitted that while NIPDEC did not have a Quantity Surveyor (QS) on its site team, when matters arose which needed to be queried, a QS would be consulted. She said NIPDEC had to depend on BHC's QS.

Thompson said although she did not personally agree with payments to BHC for the changes, they were eventually paid. She agreed that Romano, who had authority, disregarded her opinion.

Thompson appearing to be a bit under pressure by Phelps questioning, insisted that NIPDEC did everything possible to keep within the US$105 million project budget.

She complained that when the change orders were sent by BHC, they were sent to Cateau for his approval or "non objection". She said NIPDEC did not have all the "pictures to determine if there was a cost saving" and confirmed that her management/technical team had problems with the client, BHC and NIPDEC's Board. She said they pushed her team away and whatever BHC said it had to be followed.

Hart commented that NIPDEC did not put itself in a position to meaningfully challenge BHC estimates, and "that is where the runaway train got away".

Hart noted that NIPDEC was not leading or managing the project, but merely doing good recording and acting by reaction.

Thompson responded by saying that Hart was referring to an "ideal" or "civilised" project, stressing, "not this project". She said NIPDEC did not get the effect it wanted and was like a "hamster in a cage", the cage being the contract. She said with a different kind of client and more sympathetic Board, her team would have been able to do something different.

Thompson said in hindsight, more people could have been pulled on the project, but agreed that the Board allowed her team to honour its obligations on the project "in a certain way".

She is expected to continue her evidence today.