3 weeks ago
4
Udecott chairman Shankar Bidaisee. - UdecottTHE press release war between the Urban Development Corporation (Udecott) and the Judiciary continues unabated, with the former shooting off a release on July 31, standing firm in blaming the latter, for lengthy delays in repair work to the San Fernando Supreme Court building, which eventually led to the contract for this work being terminated.
On July 28, Udecott issued a release announcing that it had terminated the contract effective July 17. Chief among the reasons for this decision, the special-purpose state agency said, was because the Judiciary made several requests to change the project scope and took extended periods to give required approvals, leading to significant delays and setbacks.
An MoU between Udecott and the Judiciary for repairs to the courthouse on Harris Promenade was signed in August 2020.
Udecott chairman Shankar Bidaisee, in the July 28 release, assured that the corporation was working with the Judiciary to select a new contractor and finish the job.
Two days later, on July 30, the Judiciary fired off its rebuttal release saying it had to clarify what it deemed as a "misleading statement” made by Udecott.
It's statement quoted from the July 28 release by Udecott, part of which read, “Unfortunately, the project faced substantial setbacks due to numerous requests by the Judiciary for variations in the scope and lengthy periods awaiting mandatory approvals from the Judiciary in response to requests by Udecott, which resulted in significant delay.”
The Judiciary, in its July 30 release, called this explanation by Udecott “wholly inaccurate” and insisted delays were mainly due to the contractor’s persistent under-performance.
“While the Judiciary acknowledges that infrastructure projects of this nature may face challenges, the characterisation of delays as being primarily due to the Judiciary’s actions is wholly inaccurate and does not reflect the facts,” the Judiciary said.
The Judiciary shared a series of letters from Udecott and the contractor – dated April 2, July 4, July 26, and August 22, all of 2024, which referenced the contractor’s delays.
On July 31, Udecott responded – via press release – doubling down on its original stance that the Judiciary was to blame.
Udecott said it that as a state agency responsible for the spending vast amount of public funds, it had to account to the public on challenges it experienced on the San Fernando Supreme Court Building project, especially in the face of repeated queries by the public and members of the legal profession over the delay in reopening the courthouse.
The Udecott release said its records confirm that delays encountered during the execution of this project were due to a combination of factors, including:
* Lengthy delays accumulated while awaiting approvals from the Judiciary – after Udecott’s identification of the top ranked proponent to the Judiciary, and despite reminders, Udecott experienced a delay of an aggregate of 528 days between November 23, 2021 to May 5, 2023, awaiting a response from the Judiciary granting approval to award the contract to that top-ranked proponent.
* Various design changes and consequential variations in the Scope of Works requested by the Judiciary – a total of six requests for changes in scope of works were subsequently received from the Judiciary spanning two years between 2023 and 2025, which in itself, further delayed the project.
The Udecott release said since the contract was terminated, in keeping with standard provisions, it has promptly taken the required steps to initiate a new procurement process in order to engage a new contractor.
The release said the Judiciary’s media statement was truly regrettable and this was exacerbated by its (the Judiciary) decision to disclose records that contained the names of Udecott’s staff.
Udecott said chairman Bidaisee is looking forward to meaningful input from the Judiciary geared towards completing the project without further variations to ensure proper access to justice.
English (US) ·