Members of Parliament

IDB LOAN OF $40.2 MILLION

FOR NEW ROAD CORRIDORS

During the last sitting of Parliament on October 24, 2001, I raised the issue during the debate for the IDB Loan of $40.2 million dollars to build new road corridors for New Providence, as to the propriety of one Associate Asphalt Company being awarded the contract for the said road works, in the hopes of getting answers to the facts and questions, that should be given paramount consideration in view of the large sums of money being borrowed at this critical junction in the life and times of this nation. My concern was whether we would be getting quality work from those contracted to do the said works.

However, in a most unusual and inappropriate manner, during the debate in Parliament, only three Members of the Government spoke on the granting of the contract, of which none were the Minister’s of Works, Transport, nor the Prime Minister. One would have thought that complete elucidation of the facts would have been achieved in the discussions of such a large project during the debate in Parliament on October 4, 2001. However, many questions were left to abound, causing me to now inform the public of some troubling aspects to the granting of the said contract to Associate Asphalt Ltd. The following are the facts surrounding the granting of the contract to Associate Asphalt:

1. ASSOCIATE ASPHALT, THE COMPANY WHO RECEIVED THE CONTRACT TO BUILD NEW ROAD CORRIDORS FOR NEW PROVIDENCE WAS THE SECOND LOWEST BIDDER ON THE ROAD WORKS, BIDDING APPROXIMATELY $2 MILLION DOLLARS MORE THAN THE LOWEST BID.

2. ASSOCAITE ASPHALT IS A COMPANY WITH ORIGINS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.

3. ASSOCIATE ASPHALT HAS HAD CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE BAHAMAS SINCE 1991 TO THE PRESENT, TO OVERSEE, MANAGE AND RUN THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED BAHAMIX ASPHALT PLANT. THE MANAGEMENT TEAM IS MADE UP OF UNITED KINGDOM RETIREES. THE CONTRACT EXPIRED ON JUNE 30, 2001. Its CURRENT CONTRACTUAL STATUS IS UNKNOWN TO ME.

4. UPON RECEIVING THE CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT NEW ROAD CORRIDORS, ASSOCIATE ASPHALT WAS INSTRUCTED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO OBTAIN THE REQUIREMENT OF ASPHALT FOR THE $66 MILLION DOLLAR ROAD CONSTRUCTION FROM THE PRIVATELY-OWNED COMPANY, BAHAMAS HOT MIX PLANT.

5. THE LOAN GIVEN BY THE IDB REQUIRED THAT CERTAIN STANDARDS BE THE CRITERIA OF THE COMPANY THAT SUPPLIED ASPHALT FOR THE NEW ROAD CORRIDORS. AT SOME POINT, A MAJOR UPGRADE WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE ASPHALT PLANT AT BAHAMAS HOT MIX, AT A COST TO WHOM IT IS NOT KNOWN.

6. BAHAMAS HOT MIX IS SUBSTANTIALLY OWNED BY FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE LATE SIR ROLAND SYMONETTE, OF WHOM ONE OF THE OWNERS IS MR. BRENT SYMONETTE, THE FORMER FNM CABINET MINISTER, FNM SENATOR AND NOW DISGRACED-FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY.

7. IN APRIL OF 2001, MR. BRENT SYMONETTE WAS FORCED TO RESIGN OR BE FIRED AS AIRPORT AUTHORITY CHAIRMAN, WHEN I REVEALED TO THE PUBLIC THAT HE WAS IN A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY GIVING ROAD WORKS FOR NIA TO THE COMPANY OF WHICH HE AND HIS FAMILY ARE BENEFICIAL OWNERS. THAT COMPANY IS BAHAMAS HOT MIX.

8. BAHAMAS HOT MIX HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF MUCH SUSPICION BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF JOBS IT HAS RECEIVED AND HAS DONE FOR THE GOVERNMENT, THOSE OF WHICH SEEMS PRIMARILY BASED ON THE OWNERS AFFILIATION AND ATTACHMENTS TO THE FREE NATIONAL MOVEMENT PARTY.

9. AS CHAIRMAN OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, MR. BRENT SYMONETTE GAVE A JOB TO BAHAMAS HOT MIX TO DO THE PERIMETER ROAD AT NIA. HOWEVER THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED ASPHALT PLANY, BAHAMIX SUPPLIED ALL THE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCT TO DO THE SAID JOB FREE OF CHARGE. THE FREE OF CHARGE STATUS OF THE JOB REMAINED SO UNTIL THE MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED BAHAMIX WAS MADE AWARE OF THE ARRANGEMENT, AND MY REVEALATIONS RAISED THE CONSCIOUS LEVEL OF THE PUBLIC AS TO WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED.

10. ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 19, 2001, REMEDIAL WORK WS REQUIRED AT NIA ON RUNWAY #1432. THE REPAVING OF THE RUNWAY WAS DONE BY MR. SYMONETTE’S BAHAMAS HOT MIX.

11. THE REPAVEMENT-FINISH FAILED AFTER ONE WEEK AND WAS REPAVED FOR THE SECOND TIME ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2001.

12. AT SOME POINT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 29, AND 30, 2001, A BRITISH AIRWAYS JET UPON TAKE OFF, RIPPED A HOLE, THE SIZE MEASURED AS 10X15 IN RUNWAY #1432, WHICH IN A MATTER OF TEN DAYS PRIOR HAD BEEN REPAVED TWICE BY MR. SYMONETTE’S BAHAMAS HOT MIX.

13. IT HAS BEN REPORTED THAT THE LIFTING OF THE FAULTY ASPHALT BY THE BRITISH AIRWAYS JET COULD HAVE CAUSED SERIOUS DAMAGE TO THE SAID AIRCRAFT, SUBSEQUENTLY LEAVING THE GOVERNMENT FACING A POSSIBLE COST OF A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY TO BRITISH AIRWAYS.

14. LIKEWISE THE UPROOTED ASPHALT COULD HAVE EASILY FLEW INTO THE “THRUSTERS” OF THE ENGINES CAUSING A CRASH WHICH ULTIMATELY WOULD HAVE COST THE GOVERNMENT UNIMAGINABLE SUMS OF MONEY FOR ANY NUMBER OF REASONS. I HAVE YET TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE WORK FOR RUNWAY #1432 WENT OUT TO TENDER.

15. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT RUNWAY #1432 WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CLOSED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 AND MR. SYMONETTE’S BAHAMAS HOT MIX COMPANY HAS CONSULTED WITH ASSOCIATE ASPHALT ON HOW TO BEST RESOLVE THE POTENTIAL LIFE THREATENING CONDITIONS OF RUNWAY#1432. AS A RESULT OF THIS HAPHAZARD CIRCUMSTANCE, IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2001, RUNWAY #009 WAS THE ONLY RUNWAY OPERATIONAL AT NIA. AS I SPEAK TODAY, IT IS A MYSTERY AS TO THE STAUS OF RUNWAY #1432.

16. MR. SYMONETTE’S COMPANY, BAHAMAS HOT MIX ALSO REPAVED PARKING APRON #3 AT NIA AND ALL INDICATIONS ARE THAT THE REPAVING WORK HAS FAILED AND THE APRON HAS IN FACT STARTED TO SINK.

There are many questions that arise from the government’s obvious favor of Mr. Brent Symonette’s Bahamas Hot Mix, to the exclusion of the government-owned asphalt plant, BahaMix and the government’s lack of concern for the physical well being of the traveling public. Those questions are as follows:

A. WHY DID THE GOVERNMENT INSTRUCT ASSOCIATE ASPHALT TO GIVE MR. BRENT SYMONETTE’S COMPANY, BAHAMAS HOT MIX PLANT THE WORK TO SUPPLY THE ASPHALT FOR THE NEW ROAD CORRIDORS?

B. DID THE UPGRADE OF MR. BRENT SYMONETTE’S COMPANY, BAHAMAS HOT MIX HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ASSOCIATE ASPHALT GIVING THEM THE CONTRACT BASED ON THE REQUIREMENT OF THE IDB LOAN?

C. WHY WOULD ASSOCIATE ASPHALT FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT TO DO BUSINESS WITH MR. BRENT SYMONETTE’S BAHAMAS HOT MIX, WHEN ASSOCIATE ASPHALT HAS BEEN MANAGING AND OVERSEEING THE DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED, BAHAMIX, THAT DOES THE SAME KINDS OF WORK AS MR. BRENT SYMONETTE’S, BAHAMAS HOT MIX?

D. IS THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED, BAHAMIX QUALIFIED TO DO THE ROAD WORKS? IF NOT, WHY NOT?

E. IF IN FACT THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED BAHAMIX IS NOT QUALIFIED IN THE GOVERNMENT OR ASSOCIATE ASPHALT’S VIEW, THEN WHY WAS THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED, BAHAMIX, QUALIFIED TO DO THE WORK ON THE PERIMETER ROAD AT NIA, WHICH MR. BRENT SYMONETTE’S COMPANY, BAHAMAS HOT MIX WAS BEING CONTRACTED TO DO?

F. AFTER THE REPORTS OF SHODDY, BORDERING ON NEGLIGENT, WORK BEING DONE BY MR. BRENT SYMONETTE’S COMPANY, BAHAMAS HOT MIX ON NIA ROADWAYS, CAN THE PEOPLE BE GUARANTEED TO A REASONABLE CERTAINTY THAT QUALITY AND SAFE WORK WILL BE DONE AS WELL AS VALUE RECIEVED FOR THE $66 MILLION BEING BORROWED BY THE GOVERNMENT AT THIS CRITICAL TIME?

G. WILL THE GOVERNMENT PLEASE RESPOND TO THE STRONG SUSPICIONS THAT MR. BRENT SYMONETTE’S COMPANY, BAHAMAS HOT MIX HAS BEEN SELECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO DO THE ASPHALT WORK, MERELY AS A MEANS TO ACHIEVE THE END RESULTS OF FUNDS BEING TRANSFERED TO THE FNM PARTY FOR THEIR GENERAL ELECTION COFFERS? THIS IS A QUESTION THAT COMES ABOUT AS A RESULT OF PERCEPTION, WHEN ONE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE SYMONETTE FAMILY ARE MAJOR AND PERENNIAL CONTRIBUTORS TO THE FNM PARTY.

I have just given you the facts and have told you the questions that I asked in Parliament on October 4, 2001. Unfortunately, I received no answers to the facts nor answers to the questions. As a result of the deafening silence on the part of the government to the facts and the questions, on October 5, 2001. I wrote a letter to the relevant representative of the IDB located in New Providence. The letter reads as follows (READ LETTER).

I would hope that the media takes the same interest as I have in the government’s management of the substantial amount of $40.2 million dollars being borrowed at this critical time in our financial life. I would hope that you, the media, would seek out with vigilance and dogged determination all the facts of this circumstance. Leave no stone unturned and bring the government to heel, if it cannot be shown that the use of the $40.2 million is for the total and exclusive use of building new corridors for New Providence