Tag: Invader’s Bay

Property Matters – The Needs Assessment

The Ministry of Planning & the Economy (MPE) announced last week that 10 proposals had been received in response to its RFP for Invader’s Bay.

Given that MPE has not carried out a Needs Assessment for this prime property, for whatever reason, I will continue to outline the relevant elements for the Invader’s Bay property.  This is not intended to be complete, just a list of what I consider to be the critical items a proper Needs Assessment would include –

  • Investment – This is a parcel of land estimated to be worth at least $1.0Bn, so any attempt to describe this process as ‘not being an investment’ would be completely wrong.  In the literal sense, it might not involve any expenditure of State money, but, in every other sense, the disposal of this $1.0Bn asset would constitute a major State investment in Invader’s Bay.
  • The National Interest – At this moment the imperative is to diversify our economy so as to find sustainable replacements for our declining energy revenues, so this is an apt point.  Following on last week’s column, it seems reckless that such an attractive State-owned property would be developed without consideration of the strategic issue.  Even on the conventional basis of announcements of construction jobs and permanent jobs etc., it is difficult on purely financial grounds to justify most types of development on that site, especially given the generally depressed market.  The decisive factor, given the level of interest such a unique offering is likely to attract, would be to have as an identified ‘Need’ that only projects which were net earners of foreign exchange would be considered.  Such a condition would eliminate any offices, apartments, foreign franchise restaurants or shopping malls and set the stage for a different development discussion.  A necessary discussion at this point in our country.  Please note that the RFP does state that the project should generate foreign exchange, but that is only expressed as an ‘expectation’, which is far too flexible, given the influence of the traditional property developers.  If the intention is genuinely to break with the past and set off in a new direction, the conditions need to be strong enough to break the grip of the past.
  • Balanced Development and Lagging areas – The RFP speaks to these concerns as follows – “…The Government recognizes the value of long term planning as well as problems created when long term planning is ignored. In order to ensure balanced development and restore lagging areas, care must be taken in the development of new areas…”  Those are real concerns, but they seem at odds with the intention of the RFP, since the execution of that plan gives us yet another major development in our capital.  We should consider if this is an area we want to develop at this time – bearing in mind that scarce private-sector resources may be required in other part of the country – for instance, the San Fernando Waterfront and other areas – so that development can be balanced instead of continuing the last administration’s emphasis on POS.  The sidebar contains a comparison of three large-scale ‘urban development’ districts which formed part of the budget.

There is always the question of who controls the terms of these public debates.  The intention from this side is to have that flawed RFP withdrawn.  To proceed as things stand is to continue on a path which lacks the necessary transparency and public participation.  The quantities of money involved and the absence of those critical elements means that we would be proceeding with all the ingredients for corruption.

This RFP amounts to an invitation to tender, so the bogus idea that this is just a discussion or consideration of proposals must be discredited.  It is nothing of the sort.   This RFP is a tender process to put these valuable public lands into private hands, which is quite different from a consultation.  We have to stop any attempt to mix-up the two processes.

The State and its agencies have an over-riding obligation to be exemplary in their conduct.

SIDEBAR – A budget comparison

The 2012 budget sets out three urban development projects, at pages 31 and 32 –

  • Invader’s Bay – “…significant interest has been expressed in the transformation of the waterfront along Invader’s Bay. This development has great potential for promoting commercial activities in the services sector and will benefit the country significantly. Such projects are meant to be private sector initiatives utilizing green building technologies and will assist in making Trinidad and Tobago an attractive destination for new investments…”
  • Sustainable City Project – East Port of Spain – “…This initiative, is part of a wider “Emerging and Sustainable Cities Initiative” supported by the Inter-American Development Bank of which Port of Spain has been chosen as one of the five pilot cities from170 eligible cities in the hemisphere…This project is being developed in partnership with the East Port of Spain Council of Community Organizations, the Caribbean Network for Urban and Land Management at UWI, the East Port of Spain Development Company, and other key stakeholders. This exercise has also engaged the Making Life Important Initiative of the Ministry of National Security…”
  • Chaguaramas – “…the Chaguaramus Development Authority is spearheading development in the North-Western region and a master plan detailing land use proposals for that region will soon be subject to public discussion…”

Of course those three proposals are favouring Trinidad’s north-west peninsula, which returns to the theme of balanced development, but a further description of their relative merits is beyond the scope of this article.  I am inviting readers to consider the varying approaches to an important long-term large-scale issue such as urban development.

In the cases of east POS and Chaguaramas, the commitment to widespread consultation is manifest, yet there is no such commitment evident in the case of Invader’s Bay, which seems to me to be ‘the jewel in the crown’.  The three current strategic plans for POS, all paid for by Public Money, are being ignored by the very Ministry responsible for Planning.

Good Public Administration requires actions which foster the confidence and trust of the public, that is indisputable.  Those policies and actions must be transparent, reasonable and, above all, consistent, if the public is to place real trust in the hands of the administration.

For all those reasons, it is unwise for any administration to operate in an inconsistent fashion.

In the case of Invader’s Bay, with the stakes so very high, it would be reckless to continue in this manner.

Property Matters – Proper Procurement Practice

My last column addressed the imperative of controlling State expenditure as an element in the national budgeting process. I made the point that a new Public Procurement system needs to come into effect to give us the tools to control these huge expenditures.

The Ministry of Planning & the Economy (MPE) published a Request for Proposals (RFP) at the end of August for the development of Invader’s Bay, a 70-acre parcel of State-owned reclaimed land – shown in this plan  below: invadersbay-sml

The Invader’s Bay lands are absolutely prime property – flat, waterfront land with easy access to highways and all the urban infrastructure of water, electricity and sewers. These are valuable public lands, with an estimated value of at least $1.0Bn.

That RFP invited proposals with a closing-date of 4 October, which is an entirely inadequate 6 weeks. The Joint Consultative Council for the Construction Industry (JCC) has taken a strong position against that RFP process, including writing the MPE and meeting with the Minister, Sen. Dr. Bhoendradatt  Tewarie and Minister of Trade and Industry Stephen Cadiz, MP.

The JCC wants work for its members, but that must be after a proper process, it is not our intention to stop any particular project

The JCC wants a proper participatory process.

The first “official” response to our publicity was an article in the Newsday of Monday 3 October – ‘Cadiz: JCC jumped the gun‘, the leading point being that the government was trying to open-up the procurement process so as to invite suitable proposals.

Cadiz is reported to have said

…What the Government has done is asked interested parties for proposals for concepts,” he said. “I don’t see that there is any issue at all. There were proposals made and the Government felt that this is public land and we should open it up and we gave people six weeks, we feel that is enough time…

Public Procurement can be described as the process which results in the spending or earning of ‘Public Money’.  Public Money is money which is due to or payable by the State, or any debts for which the State is ultimately liable.  Therefore Public Money must include the contracts entered into by the State as well as the disposal, by sale or otherwise, of State assets.  The Invader’s Bay RFP is the start of a large-scale Public Procurement process, since its stated intention is to lease land to developers who make ‘suitable proposals’.

The publication of the RFP and those statements all give the impression that a proper procurement process is underway at Invader’s Bay.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  Let me explain.

The first step in the Procurement cycle is the ‘Needs Identification’.  The two main questions in the case of Invader’s Bay would be –

  1. What do we want to do with this property?  That must also include ones assumptions as to what uses are not desirable there.
  2. Why do we want to do these things?

For example, the answer to the ‘What’ question could be that the property would be used for recreation or parkland.  The answer to the ‘Why’ question could be either for private profit or to create new recreational facilities as a ‘public good’, those being free facilities which increase the amenity of a district or city.  The Brian Lara Promenade and the San Fernando Hill facility are two examples of that.

Without a Needs Assessment it is impossible to objectively assess what is a ‘suitable project’.  To carry out a Needs Assessment, it would have been necessary for the MPE to have consulted widely with the public and stakeholders.  The Invader’s Bay lands are in our capital and are about one-third the size of the Queen’s Park Savannah.  My point being that any proper Needs Assessment must involve substantial public and stakeholder consultation.

There has been no consultation whatsoever.  None.

What is even more unacceptable is that the RFP, which was published by the Ministry of Planning & the Economy, is silent as to the 3 existing strategic plans for the Port-of-Spain area.  The 3 plans are:

  1. Final Draft Development Plan: A Strategic Planning Framework for Metropolitan Port of Spain (Volume 2 Implementation Plan – The Port of Spain City Corporation) [Main Link] [Alternate Link]
  2. A Strategy for the Economic, Social and Physical Transformation of East Port of Spain: East Port of Spain Strategic Development Plan – September 2007
  3. Port of Spain Waterfront Project Strategic Development Plan for lands from Sea Lots to the Mucurapo Foreshore, still unpublished.

All of those plans paid for with Public Money.  A straight case of – ‘nearer to Church, further from God’.

So, how are the proposals to be assessed?  How will the decisions be made?

At para 3.5 of the RFP, at ‘Project Assessment’, we read –

“Proposals will be scored using the “Invader’s Bay Development Matrix and Criteria Description”.

We asked for that document when we met with the Ministers, but were told that it would be completed after the closing-date.

In the absence of these rules, how can developers know the ingredients of a winning proposal?  Given that the evaluation rules are due to be completed after the closing-date, how can we be sure that this is a transparent process?

This could be an opportunity to demonstrate best-practice for public procurement, as promised by the People’s Partnership.

What is happening here is a recipe for accusations, blunders and confusion, just like in the previous decades of ‘old politics’.  All the ingredients for corruption are present and that is why the JCC has made this call for the immediate withdrawal of this deeply-flawed RFP and its revision, after wide consultation.

We need to move away from the pattern of the biggest projects being set-up in secret , so that by the time the public gets to hear about it, all the vital details are fixed.

Expediency taking precedence over proper process has long been a costly constant in the governance of our society.

We must do better and it is not too late to do the right thing.

Expenditure of Public money – Accountability – Transparency = CORRUPTION

SIDEBAR: Criticisms by Cadiz

stephencadiz
Minister of Trade and Industry, Stephen Cadiz, MP

It is instructive to consider the criticisms of the JCC which were reportedly made by Cadiz.The headline accused the JCC of ‘jumping the gun’, implying undue haste and thoughtless speed.  Cadiz is quoted as saying, “…I think the JCC jumped the gun,” he said. “If you cannot do it by six week then how long? Six months?”.

At another point in the same article, Cadiz is quoted as saying, “We need to get these things going,” he said. “The JCC only made representation of their disappointment four weeks into the RFP…”  The implication being that the JCC were tardy and should have acted more swiftly.

If this Invader’s Bay situation were not so serious, it would be comical. The question in my mind is ‘Which of those explanations does Minister Cadiz believe?’

What seems clear is the hostility with which the Minister views the intervention of the JCC.