Spancrete loses interchange effort

Justice Mark Mohammed, sitting in the Port-of-Spain Civil Court, ruled that the issues raised by Spancrete did “not sound” in public law.

Spancrete had sought the assistance of the court to declare Udecott’s July 31, 2001 decision to abort the tendering process of the interchange project at the intersection of the Uriah Butler and Churchill Highways, null and void and of no effect.

The company also submitted that Udecott was obligated to consider the applicant’s tenders for the project and that it (Udecott) was in breach of the contract because it failed to exercise fairness in considering the tenders. Udecott, Spancrete claimed, had also failed to adhere to its own tendering procedures. The applicant requested an order to quash Udecott’s decision to abort the tendering process, and a court order compelling Udecott to consider its (Spancrete’s) tender. Spancrete also sought costs and damages.

According to the arguments raised by Spancrete’s attorneys Stanley Marcus SC and Colin Kangaloo, Udecott had been entrusted with the interchange project, which was a Government construction project. In a letter dated October 17, 2000, Spancrete had been invited to tender for the supply, delivery and installation of pre-cast, pre-stressed concrete piles and beams for the project.

The contract was eventually awarded to Pres-T-con although that company had tendered a higher price than Spancrete. The applicant was never given a good reason for the non-award of the project and was informed via a letter dated March 28, 2001, that the project was being comprehensively reviewed.

Udecott was represented by attorneys Fyad Hosein SC and Sonny Maharaj SC.