Matthew Xuereb
ADT to analyse project manager's bills
The Malta Transport Authority will analyse bills submitted by architect Charles Buhagiar, a Labour Party candidate for the March 8 election, whose company won the tender to carry out the construction management of road works in Gozo, a government spokesman said yesterday.
The reconstruction of Mġarr Road and San Lawrenz Road in Gozo were funded by the EU and will be inaugurated by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Roads Minister Jesmond Mugliett today.
Through his company MED Design and Associates, Labour's shadow minister for public works, transport and roads had been awarded a contract to supervise the road works. He was awarded the contract, worth €85,720 (Lm36,800), in September 2006, after having tendered for the job.
The contract for the actual works was awarded to a consortium composed of Schembri Infrastructure, Bonnici Bros and Road Construction. The estimated value of the project was €3,309,191 (Lm1,420,636).
The government spokesman said the original cost of the project was exceeded by €2.23 million (Lm958,395.12) and Mr Buhagiar, an architect by profession, claimed an extra €56,704 (Lm24,343) for the extra work carried out as a result of the overruns.
The ADT received his bills last September 6 this year.
Mr Buhagiar informed the director of the Road Network Infrastructure Directorate that the consortium awarded the work had to carry out variations to what had been planned. These were split into two: Eligible variations and non-eligible variations. The first are those contemplated in the tender document and the second cover variations not included in the original tender.
The bills presented by Mr Buhagiar on behalf of the contractor amounted to €854,542 (Lm366,855) for eligible variations and €1.37 million (Lm591,540) for non-eligible variations.
With regard to his own bills, Mr Buhagiar is claiming an extra €21,705 (Lm9,318) for eligible variations and €34,999 (Lm15,025) for non-eligible variations.
In the case of eligible variations, Mr Buhagiar noted that due to such variations, more time and effort was required in terms of additional construction management services. He invoiced the ADT pro rata for the additional value of the work.
With regard to the non-eligible variations, Mr Buhagiar noted that these were connected to works considered as additional to those specified in the contract. Hence, they could not have been foreseen before the works started which meant that the construction management fee for them could not be set earlier.
The government spokesman said the ADT will be looking into the invoices to establish whether they were justified, especially since the transport watchdog had not been informed about the variations until it received the bills from Mr Buhagiar in his capacity as project manager.
When contacted, Mr Buhagiar said the fact that a project has overruns and the person or company entrusted with the construction management claims more money in view of the additional work, are both "normal practices".
Mr Buhagiar explained that there are variations that would have been predicted and others that would not have been.
It was only fair, he said that his company invoices for the additional work. It was also a normal thing for the ADT and, in this case, the Contracts Department to question and contest the invoices they get.
When asked, he said the Contracts Department and the ADT were constantly kept informed about the variations.
"They knew all along about the variations," he insisted.
3 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
D Pace
Feb 22nd 2008, 18:11
'L-ispizjar milli jkollu jtik' runs the maltese saying.... so much for Labour's constant slandering about cost overruns... So behind some of the cost overrun, we seem to have one of the mud-slingers... truly, the only way for Labour is OUT!.....
Mario J. Vella
Feb 22nd 2008, 16:37
When I read a story like this, I cannot but start wondering. How come ADT waited from September to mid February to analyse these bills? Why did ADT feel the need to contact the The Times, or publish details on this bill, and not on others it analyses? Why does this article focus on a €56,704 (Lm24,343) bill and not on €2.23 million (Lm958,395.12) overruns? Did the journalist ask ADT whether or not it will be analysing the overruns themselves? A pertinent question could have been: What caused the overruns? It is good to learn that ADT is finally starting to analyse its bills before paying them. That's the essence of good management. After all, the money in its coffers are paid by us taxpayers. What worries me is that we have never seen stories on the analysing of other bills. Does this mean that for the last years ADT was paying bills without checking them? I hope not. I do hope ADT is also checking out the bills for the St Paul's Bay bypass, for the Manwel Dimech Bridge, and for other multi million projects as well. And when it does, I do hope to see another article in The Times. Maybe during this week too, for fairness' sake. Let us hope that the knight in shining armour who took the interest to inform taxpayers about this bill will keep on marching ahead in the interest of citizens and publish other stories on other bills by the same authority. How about asking the authority to give us a deadline for the completion of the new Manwel Dimech Bridge?
Victor Laiviera
Feb 22nd 2008, 15:16
This is the pay-back for the MLP's insistence on transparency about the relations between Jesmond Mugliett and Robert Sant.
Shameful