A HIGH COURT judge has ordered the Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA) to pay a Sangre Grande contractor money owed to it for work completed in 2015.
As he also dismissed a counter-claim by WASA for the recovery of sums to correct alleged defects in the project and overpayment for work not done by the contractor, Justice Frank Seepersad called for a review of the way state enterprises and politically-appointed boards operate.
Seepersad made the call as he delivered an oral decision after a virtual hearing on Tuesday.
He said the events in the matter caused some disquiet, as it raised significant questions as to why 90 per cent of the contract sum had been paid in August 2015, a month shy of a general election, when WASA had done no verification exercise to determine if there were defects on the project.
This exercise took place in January 2020, and was based on reports provided by engineers hired by WASA.
The authority filed the counter-claim seeking repayment of the money previously paid to the contractor to correct the defects found and for work not allegedly done by Incorp Investments Company Ltd at Cascadoux Branch Road, Kernaham project.
“It appears little regard was had by this state entity for the manner in which taxpayers' funds were utilised. The acronym for WASA may now stand for ‘What A Sorry Affair,’" Seepersad said. He added that state agencies, guided by the political directorate, should not be allowed to operate “whimsically and without regard for accountability and for ensuring the assets and resources of the State are properly utilised.”
At the trial, evidence was adduced that the contractor did not receive a formal notification from WASA of defective or incomplete work when the worksite was handed over in April 2015. The 2014 contract was for Incorp Investments to repair mains, instal stop corks, curb valves and meters, when required, for two years. In August 2015, it received payment of some 90 per cent of the contract and sued the authority for the remaining $156,249.93 it said it was owed.
Seepersad said he accepted Incorp’s evidence that WASA’s project manager confirmed completion of the work in 2015 and the payment of 90 per cent of the contract sum was “indictable of acceptance” by the authority that the work was done.
He said WASA had an obligation to unearth defects in the work and inform the contractor of them so remedial work could be done, but no such steps were taken within a year after the handover.
Seepersad said he was not discrediting the work done by the engineers and their findings in the 2020 defects report, adding that it may have been that the work was defective. He said environmental considerations could have affected the review process four years later.
In dismissing WASA’s counter-claim for $428,669.53, he ordered the authority to pay Incorp the $156,209.93 owed as well as costs on both the contractor’s claim of breach of contract and its own counter-claim.
He granted a 30-day stay of execution on the payment as requested by WASA’s attorney Christl
