Date extended for replacement of controversial bulldozer

Apr 06, 2018 News

The bulldozer in question.

The obsolete bulldozer that still sits outside the Regional Democratic Council, Region Six is yet to be taken away by the contractor who provided it.
A sum of $15M was issued to the contractor in the form of a cheque signed off by the Region for a D4D Caterpillar bulldozer. The machine was taken to the Regional Democratic Council compound in January. A few days later, it was discovered that the bulldozer was covered in dirt and several parts had deteriorated.
After this was brought to light by the media, the supplier met with the Regional Executive Officer, Region Six, Kim Stephens, and was given 60 days to supply a brand new machine and take back the one he handed over.
Up to today, the bulldozer has not been returned and the $15M still remains with the supplier.
According to the Regional Chairman, David Armogan, one of the options now will be to have the supplier provide a manager’s cheque, which was supposed to be done in the initial stages but wasn’t.
“If he doesn’t deliver a proper machine, or take back the machine then we can confiscate the bond. (We need) a manager’s cheque from the bank so that we can hold on to something substantial in case he doesn’t deliver on his promise.”
He stressed that all machines should be inspected and given the green light before given to the Region. “The man should not have been paid unless the bulldozer was certified; that was the first mistake that was made.”
Armogan revealed that the REO had initially stated that no money was paid to the supplier but later recanted and declared it a mistake on her behalf and said the money was paid.
“I don’t know if she didn’t remember or if it was deliberate. That is a judgment that has to be made by an individual. My position is that we were misinformed and then she subsequently corrected that,” Armogan said.
Armogan then admitted that the REO is responsible for what was supplied to the region. “At the end of the day, I have to be advised by the REO. They are the people who deal with payment of monies and so on because they have to account for it.
“I can ask questions about financing of the region but when you are given wrong answers, you are not sure until later on when you find out.”
The REO, Kim Stephens, has since issued a letter that was distributed to councillors at Thursday’s statutory meeting to respond to PPP councillor Haseef Yusuf’s letter written in a section of media and accusing the REO of corruption in relation to the bulldozer.
In the letter, she asked that proof be given by Yusuf of the “alleged corruption”.
Yusuf in his letter was questioning whether there was a bond in place when the bulldozer was purchased.
“I wrote in this letter that we were told that the supplier had signed a bond to the value of $15M and should the supplier fail to replace the bulldozer then the bond should be forfeited”.
The letter issued by the REO also had performance bond attached that was dated March 14. Yusuf explained that, “It means then that this bond is for the new contract for the bulldozer to be supplied. There this bond does not cover that bulldozer that is sitting out there; there was no bond for that bulldozer and that was the bond I was asking about. I am not asking about a bond for this new contract”.
Yusuf stressed that he asked about the bond in February. He said that the letter does refer to the old transaction but an entirely new one.
Adding to what Yusuf would have said, Regional Vice Chairman, Dennis De Roop, stated, “That bond was not provided. I want to ask if there was a bond there. It seems that there was none then. Now we are seeing a new bond.
“I want to ask if the Regional Administration has entered into another contract with the supplier because this bond covers another particular period from March – June”.
De Roop suggested that legal action be considered as the next step against the supplier.