Resolution to impasse needed

Earlier this month, the Sunday Newsday reported that the project had been put on hold because the UNDP’s representative, Dr Inyang Ebong-Harstrup, apparently objected to the company which had been awarded the contract by the Works ministry’s Evaluation Committee. But it appears that the problem had reared its head even before the tendering procedures had been completed, with the UNDP-appointed chairman of the tendering committee seeming to favour a certain foreign company. When the Evaluation Committee decided on another firm, Dr Ebong-Harstrup apparently told the Ministry that the foreign company would have been a better choice. Our report also noted what seemed to be a veiled ultimatum by the UNDP.

Although the Sunday Newsday had attempted to contact Dr Ebong-Harstrup before the report was published, it was not until a week later that the UNDP issued a statement. The statement said that the final decision rested with the Works Ministry and that the UNDP had no power to stall any project. More pertinently, the statement held that Dr Ebong-Harstrup had not acted improperly but was only ensuring that the UNDP’s policies and procedures were followed and that the project would be successfully executed.

If this is the case, it seems odd that the Works Ministry should have felt it necessary to halt the entire project for an independent evaluation to be done. It is, we suppose, possible that the Permanent Secretary mistook Dr Ebong-Harstrup’s professional concern for interference. At the same time, we can see how it would be easy to make such a misinterpretation if Dr Ebong-Harstrup, as reported in our story, went so far as to assert that the ministry would "save money" by going with the foreign company and that its (the ministry’s) concerns about the suitability of the company were "minor." The UNDP statement did not deny that Dr Ebong-Harstrup made these claims, but devoted most of its content to extolling the qualifications of its two representatives on the Evaluation Committee.

But all this is not really the main issue. The statement also points out that computerising the Licensing Division would make the department "more user-friendly and secure, bringing the Trinidad and Tobago Road Transport sector up to date to respond to the needs of its thousands of daily commuters." And this is the true crux of the matter. It is absurd that the Transport Division still makes do with paper files and index cards, especially with so many cars coming on the road every day. Indeed, according to the UNDP, they were brought in specifically because previous attempts to computerise the division had failed. This, we admit, is of itself reason to be suspicious — computerising any organisation always means data collection, and data when computerised can often reveal much funny business which was previously hidden by mounds of paper.

But this, if anything, makes it even more crucial that the exercise be done. Computerising the division is not only going to improve efficiency many times over, but it will also make it easier to deal with vehicular crimes. Whatever the root of this impasse, we insist that the Works Ministry and the UNDP solve it in short order and get on with the business at hand. As far as we know an evaluation committee has already voted to move on with a company that tendered. Why the delay?