Birk Hillman called the shots

A FORMER NIPDEC manager yesterday revealed that Birk Hillman Consultants (BHC) “called the shots”on every decision taken regarding the Piarco International Airport Project. As the Commission of Inquiry into the Project continued at the Caribbean Court of Justice yesterday, it was also revealed that BHC and Northern York Consortium (NYC) were protected on several controversial project decisions by the former United National Congress (UNC) government.

Under questioning by NIPDEC attorney Christopher Hamel-Smith, former NIPDEC senior project manager Ian Telfer testified that he was part of the company’s team to deal with the Project.  Telfer said a March 31, 1998 contract between Government and NIPDEC, showed that the latter (NIPDEC) was supposed to be the designated overseer for the Project. “That was our understanding,” he told the Commission. However Hamel-Smith pointed out that regardless of Telfer’s understanding of NIPDEC’s role in the project, the contract recited that “BHC is the project manager”. The former manager agreed with Hamel-Smith assessment of that contract. Telfer said in his professional opinion, Trinidad and Tobago would not be getting its money’s worth on the Project if anyone else other than NIPDEC was the project manager. He noted that when NIPDEC took charge of the Project in April 1998, BHC had already been retained as the principal contractor. Telfer said the scope of that retainer was very wide and included design services, tender procedures, project and construction management services. The former manager said when NIPDEC questioned the extent of duties given to BHC and asked the Airports Authority (AA) to suspend some of these functions, NIPDEC’s recommendations were rejected by the AA. Telfer also explained that on a project of such as the Airport, value engineering was essential and NIPDEC “pressed BHC to do that as part of its contract”. The former manager agreed with Hamel-Smith’s argument that while NIPDEC “persuaded BHC to comply”, the Government intervened and told NIPDEC that “it was no longer necessary for BHC to do that”. Telfer stated that by its actions, Government had undermined NIPDEC’s ability to bring value to the Project.

The former manager also claimed that the NYC (of which UNC financier Ishwar Galbaransingh’s Northern Construc-tion Limited is a part) received favourable treatment from the former UNC regime regarding the scope of works it did on the Project. Under earlier questioning by Sonny Maharaj SC, attorney for former NIPDEC chairman Edward Bayley, Telfer said Clause 213 of Government’s contract with NIPDEC gave the company authority “to negotiate in terms of legitimate claims” advanced by contractors regarding different aspects of the Project. He stated that he was part of the NIPDEC team which participated in negotiations with NYC regarding the scope of works on the controversial CP6. Asked by Maharaj if he knew that Government terminated NYC’s previous contract for CP6 after questions of irregularity arose, Telfer replied affirmatively. However he said during the negotiations for the new CP6 contract, NYC seemed to be “expecting the entire project”. Questioned later on the same issue by Hamel-Smith, Telfer said NIPDEC’s directive was to “treat NYC fairly” by offering it a reducing scope of works on CP6. However he said the Cabinet subsequently took a decision to award CP6 to NYC. He further disclosed that a report from Ministry of Works and Transport representative on the Project, Peter Cateau, recommended that NYC receive “almost all of CP6 at prices that were not the product of any competitive tendering procedure”. Telfer declared that for him this was the “straw that broke the camel’s back” and he tendered his resignation from NIPDEC.

He claimed that Government placed greater emphasis on protecting NYC than “the interest of the project.  Telfer agreed with Commission lead attorney Theodore Guerra SC that when NIPDEC assumed control of the Project, BHC should have submitted all of its preliminary works to NIPDEC for review. Telfer added that NIPDEC was “wearing two hats” on the Project in terms of its dealings with Government and BHC.  Under earlier cross-examination by Maharaj, Telfer said NIPDEC’s attorneys had no problem with Clause 213 and he could not recall Bayley ever discussing the specifics of the Project with him.  He also referred to an April 1998 between NIPDEC and the AA which allegedly prevented NIPDEC from requesting changes to the design of the terminal building. The hearing continues today.