Editorial | Getting value for money

We empathise with the national security minister, Horace Chang, in his lament of building contractors being cavalier with government jobs.

But the minister’s complaint suggests deeper problems than he admitted in his recent remarks to the Jamaica Hotel and Tourist Association. Among other things, it indicates a failure of robust management and oversight when taxpayers’ money is on the line. And with respect to the examples offered by the minister, it raises questions about the status of the building/construction mechanism that was put in place by the former commissioner of police, Carl Williams, which, in part, was to address concerns such as those aired by Dr Chang.

In the current fiscal year, the Government has budgeted nearly J$2.8 billion in capital spending for internal security projects, most of which is related to the police. More than J$1 billion of this money is earmarked for ongoing work on a new pathology and forensic suite, as well as modern police divisional headquarters in northern St Catherine and Westmoreland. Hundreds of millions of dollars more will be spent on smaller projects, including the renovation of police stations.

But by Dr Chang’s estimate, on many of the smaller projects taxpayers may not get value of more than 30 cents on the dollar from contractors.

“...When contractors get work in police stations, they don’t take it seriously,” Dr Chang told the tourism industry professionals. “They undermine the Government … . They know it, and they literally, for want of a better word, do a bad job.”

DEEP ATTITUDE

The minister’s perspective on the problem is part of a deeper attitude of people in commercial engagements with the Government: they perceive it as an opportunity for “free money”, despite all the changes “in the procurement process and in the law”.

A proposed fix from the current police chief, Major General Antony Anderson – presumably for small works – is, according to Dr Chang, to “organise the police to manage some of the work”.

Carl Williams, who served as the police commissioner for two and half years between 2014 and end of 2017, had the same, or similar, idea. Dr Williams, who himself had dabbled in construction, recruited a handful of construction professionals for a special unit that was to oversee the constabulary’s renovations and greenfield construction projects. Indeed, that team was reported to have managed the completion of the police’s national headquarters in Kingston.

It is not clear whether that unit still exists, and if not, why it was disbanded. If it did not deliver value for money, Major General Anderson should explain and say what will be different with whatever he now has in mind.

But while Minister Chang’s focus was on what happens with small projects, there is the bigger issue of the attitude towards, and the management of, taxpayers’ resources. The electricity switches, outlets and plumbing that do not work after the refurbishing of police stations are merely manifestations of the waste, and worse, that takes place in the spending of public money.

Indeed, even when people should know better, they have built police stations in unsuitable and flood-prone areas, as was notoriously the case with the new police station at Green Acres, St Catherine. Last October, at the first heavy rains after the station was completed, but not yet occupied, it was predictably marooned in the lake left by the downpour.

MANY OTHER EXAMPLES

There are, of course, the many other examples of wasteful expenditure and of taxpayers seemingly being left holding the bag that have been recorded by agencies like the Integrity Commission and the Auditor General Department.

Blithe or en passant explanations of an easy disregard for procurement rules and related laws cannot be a sufficient explanation in the circumstance. The obvious next question is about who is held accountable and/or brought to book.

When contractors are mobilised, somebody has oversight for the projects. The contractors are supposed to provide undertakings in written contracts that the jobs will be done right and within agreed specifications. Contractees are guaranteed value for their money.

So, quantity surveyors, for example, are expected to certify that a specific portion of work, at a prescribed cost, has been done before the contractor is paid for that portion of the job. Usually, too, a portion of the contract fee is held back as leverage against the contractor, in the event that the job is not properly completed.

At least, that is how the system is supposed to operate. Which is not the same as providing 30 per cent of the deliverables for 100 per cent of the cost.

If and when this happens, it suggests that somebody, for whatever reason, is not paying attention.