Company ordered to repay EMA mobilisation fee

- File photo
- File photo

A Marabella company has been ordered to repay the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) a little over $1.2 million which represents 50 per cent of the contract fee for repair and refurbishment of nine police surveillance bays along the Uriah Butler and Solomon Hochoy Highways.

Justice Frank Seepersad made the order after he found on a balance of probabilities that the company, Synergy Resources Ltd, did not discharge its contractual obligations and was not entitled to retain the mobilisation fee, which was half the contract fee.

Synergy was also ordered to pay the EMA’s costs.

According to the EMA’s claim, it entered into a contract with SRL on April 16, 2015, for work on the surveillance bays at a contract price of $2.4 million.

In order to repair and refurbish the nine bays, SRL was expected to use equipment verified from stock, replace all missing and damaged lights, signs and road studs to have each of the nine bays fully functional.

It was also expected to test and ensure all equipment was fully functional, including power requirements for the security cameras; get sign off from the TSTT for the camera power for each bay – there were to be two cameras per bay – ensure all work was completed in according to health and safety standards for working on active highways; ensure all safety requirements were adhered to and conduct all work during the hours specified by the police service and the Ministry of Works.

Synergy was expected to complete the repair and refurbishment of the bays within three months of the contract date, which was July 20, 2015. Fifty per cent was paid to SRL as a mobilisation fee and the balance was to be paid upon completion of the work.

After the completion date was varied by the EMA by June 2016 on SRL’s request, but during a site the EMA’s team on that date observed that only 28 per cent of the work was done.

In his witness statement, EMA’s managing director Hayden Romano said SRL failed to provide monthly progress reports and believed, based on representation by SRL, it had the equipment to do the job and the expertise.

He said to date none of the nine surveillance bays have been repaired nor did SRL returned the mobilisation fee.

Comments

"Company ordered to repay EMA mobilisation fee"

More in this section