A former offensive contractor rewarded Govt with extensions

Contractors who break their contracts and do poor work are penalized and money is deducted from their contract fees, with some even terminating their contracts.
The former Government, however, chose to reward with more contractor extensions that continually tossed out its contract deadlines, and even abandoned the job site.
This particular contractor, Surrey Paving and Ideal Engineering, was awarded a contract in May 2019 to carry out construction work on Hunter Street, Georgetown up to $ 86.6 million. Surrey Paving has since received a total of $ 35 million in payments, and was due to complete the project in December 2019, but according to the 2019 Guyana Audit Office report, the contractor failed to promote the project, resulting in chaotic and unfinished way.
“The contractor failed to pursue the work diligently, and again the Ministry granted three extensions of time, instead of taking action against the defective contractor. In addition, the completion date was extended from December 11, 2018 to March 13, 2020, then to July 17, 2020, and finally to August 7, 2020, ”the report states.
“The third extension was granted although the Ministry, by letter dated July 9, 2020, alerted the contractor that it was performing poorly and that the site had been abandoned on December 16, 2019 and construction had not commenced again for five weeks, ”Auditor General Deodat Sharma also wrote.
According to the scope of the works, the contractor was supposed to build a pedestrian pavement with concrete drains between Front Road and Daisy Street, as well as Water Lilly Street and Mandela Avenue on the east side of the carriageway.
Surrey Paving was also supposed to widen the shoulders of the road, build a concrete drain on the west side, and build a concrete road with an asphalt surface.
A visit to this publication on the site on Wednesday revealed that work has since resumed on the street. This publication understands that work has resumed under a new company, Vieira 66 Logistics.
In the meantime, issues were also raised with the procurement method used by the previous government to engage with the previous contractor. According to the Auditor General, there is no information on when the work was advertised, the length of bids submitted, or even information on how many proposals were received.
“Only the contractor’s application form, dated December 20, 2019, was seen. The tender evaluation report for audit audit was also not submitted. As such, we could not confirm whether the tender and award of the contract were in accordance with the Procurement Act 2003, ”said the Auditor General.