Former
Benjamin, who was unfairly dismissed from APUA eight years ago and who subsequently won his case in court, queried the possibility of the agreement on the loan amount being made since 2006 which was well in advance of the project development and design.
In a letter to the editor, Benjamin posited, “Are they saying that the contract price for the new plant was determined before the project was developed, or was it just mere coincidence that the project cost and the loan turned out to be the same?”
The engineer called on APUA and government officials to state whether the former (APUA) was aware of and approved Beijing Construction Engineering Group (BCEG) to subcontract with Xi’an Marine Equipment Engineering Research Academy (XMEA) for the procurement, construction and commissioning of the plant.
Another matter on his list of 10 was a query as to whether APUA was aware that XMEA was actually formed “around the same time the contract between APUA and BCEG was signed, thus the local power plant project would have been their first project of its kind.”
He also asked whether SXD, which manufactures the brand of engines on line here, was a director on XMEA’s board since XMEA was the middleman that procured the engines for BCEG which had the original contract to build the plant at Crabbs.
Benjamin also wants the public to be told who negotiated BCEG’S contract and who further approved the payments for BCEG’s portion of the work, and when.
While the question as to whether APUA got value for money remains unanswered, Benjamin said answers ought to be provided on the state of the engines on arrival.
The former APUA official said the recent press conference by local government and Chinese officials left him with more questions than answers as the session was not very informative.
The press conference to which Benjamin referred was held by Antiguan and Chinese officials to address alleged issues surrounding the new plant handed over by the Chinese government in Crabbs last September.
The press conference came after a series of questions and allegations over the power plant, including whether the equipment was new, the amount spent among other things. Both sides refuted the allegations.
Meanwhile, The Daily OBSERVER is yet to receive a response from APUA to correspondence requesting information pertaining to the processes by which the power plant was tested and commissioned.
(Source http://www.antiguaobserver.com/?p=71165)