By Ivan Anderson, Contributor
The Old Harbour Bypass was affected by extortion attempts.
THE WORK of the NWA essentially, is that of project management. The ISO (International Standards Organisation) principles guide us in implementing a Quality Management system that defines the way we plan, control and manage our road projects. As we standardise the existing processes, we are simultaneously augmenting those activities that we consider our best practices.
Have we succeeded? It is a daily battle.
As we move to implement and maintain the Quality Management System we face many challenges. One very serious challenge is the practise of extortion.
What does this mean in the construction industry:
Firstly it means that in many communities (used to be inner city), work can only be done with the permission of the community don. He determines who works, who is from the area and who isn't.
He determines how much they are to be paid, and in turn how much they are to pay him. How long they work for. What it will cost the contractor for his services in allowing the project to proceed.
RATIONALE
In two recent projects that we were implementing, the dons requested $100,000 per fortnight and $400,000 for the contract period in order to work in the areas. Unfortunately this practice is sometimes unwittingly given cover by statements such as persons from the area must get the work. Let us look at the rationale for this statement, why is there a need for the community leaders to insist that only persons who are from the area should be employed?
The further away workers live from where they work the greater is their cost for coming to work and the more they must be paid to offset the travel costs. It is irrational for a labourer who lives in Montego Bay to travel to Kingston every day. The cost of the bus fare alone would eat out his daily pay. This would suggest that it is in the worker's interest to work close to where he lives.
It is also in the contractors best interest to employ persons who are closer to the site so they get to work earlier. He doesn't have to worry about transporting them or providing accommodation for them.
So if it is in the worker's and the contractor's best interest to have workers from within or close to the site, why is there this need for community leaders to continue to reinforce this point?
Let us accept for a moment that persons from the community/area must be employed.
Who determines the area that we are referring to? Is this based on the parish boundary, the constituency boundary, the citizens association boundary, or it is some notional boundary as determined by the don. Unfortunately, the latter appears to be the case.
Are the services of this don given freely in support of his community? Unfortunately, these services come at a very high price.
SALARIES
Who determines what these people are to be paid? Is it based on the Joint Consultative Committee of the construction industry who sets minimum rates. Is it based on the market salary for these skills, or is it based on what these dons believe these people should be paid? Again unfortunately the latter appears to be the case.
Because no persons can come from outside who may be willing to work for lower rates then the contractors either take it or leave it.
Similarly, it is the latter who also determines for how long these persons will work.
The only rational reason for the contractor to even want to employ persons from further away is because he believes the costs of employing these persons are lower and he is likely to get a full days work for a full days pay.
Let me leave you with a story taken from a contractors site diary: In 1971 the Ministry of Housing developed a housing scheme made up of 175 units. The scheme had since been abandoned since the 1980's due to violence.
Tenders were invited from registered contractors to carry out the repairs to these units in 2001 - the lowest tender was $4.7M.
In the bid evaluation, the lowest bid was 15 per cent below the engineer's estimate. The quantity surveyor wrote in his evaluation "the community within which the works fall is considered very problematic particularly with respect to the employment of labour and this tender does not reflect any adequate provision to deal with these problems".
The contract was nonetheless awarded to the low bidder. The following chronicles his operation on the site:
First Day: We were told by a group of men on site to make Mr. Big and Mr. Bad (real aliases not used), head of security for the work. Mr. Big would control men from top (side of the community) and Mr. Bad would control men from the bottom. We were held by gunpoint to pay a sum of $100,000 to each of them for protection money, a total of $200,000 after the job complete. Also we should pay a sum of $6,000 for 14 men totalling $84,000 over the fortnight. We had to agree to pay a sum of $30,000 for excavation and demolition of a Trap, Gully and Basin (TGB).
Second Day: Work stoppage, a demand was made for an increase from $30,000 to $90,000 for excavation and demolition of the TGB. We were held at gunpoint again and we then had to agree to pay $70,000 (we got only $50,000 to do such work).
Third Day: Work continued
Fourth Day: Mr. Bad who was one of the area leaders, was shot in front of us. The shot went through his arm. Work stopped for two hours.
Fifth-Eighth Day: Work Continued.
Ninth Day: Work stopped half a day. A list of 46 names of people who didn't work was presented to us. We were surrounded by all these people so we had to agree to pay each one of them $3,000 which made this pay bill a total of $138,000 plus $84,000 - $222,000.
Tenth Day: Work Continued
Eleventh Day: Three drums of asphalt that were on fire was turned over by a man from the bottom.
Twelfth Day: One man from the bottom came up and was sitting on the wall. He was shot in the hip and face, he died later at hospital.
Day Thirteen Day Fifteen: Work continues
Sixteenth Day: Mr. Bad stopped the work; his demand, $60,000 or no work. We were forced to pay this.
Day Seventeen Day Twenty One: Work continued
Day Twenty Two Twenty Six: Work stopped a new demand of $150,000 was made. We were held at gunpoint. We had to pay.
Over the period, in addition, some $750,000 (worth) of tools and materials were stolen. Over the period the quantity surveyors withdrew from the site citing threats to their employees.
A few weeks later the contractor abandoned the site himself. He had been paid some 87% of the original contract sum including a sum of $41,600 which was paid as some compensation for the difficulties experienced by the contractor.
Is it too much to ask that Jamaicans not be judged based on where they live, not only the man who comes from Trench Town to New Kingston to seek a job, but also the man from Tivoli who goes to Trench Town to seek a job?
Is it too naive to suggest that Jamaicans should be free to go anywhere to seek work and be judged purely on their skills.
Is the man from Tivoli Gardens with a family to feed any more deserving of opportunity and employment than the man with his family who lives in Matthews Lane less than half mile away?
If the man from the area must get work then when no work is being done in his own area, were will he work?
This present scenario only creates persons so desperate that the contract is seen as a feeding tree for they know not when work will return to the area. Neither contractors or business want to work in the area.
What do we do: Encourage community ownership of projects similar to some of the JSIF projects, encouraging sponsors for our more routine projects. Where communities begin to extort money from the contractors then we should seek to move somewhere where the contractor is welcome.
If we are to have value for money, the communities we serve must partner in the implementation of projects. We must have a Quality Management System, a compliment of well trained staff, a cadre of skilled labourers and people in our communities who must become more involved in monitoring these projects.
For far too long we have allowed the workmanship on our projects to fall. Skilled artisans are a thing of the past. Labourers who can throw cement into a batch of concrete wall call themselves grade 1 masons, without even understanding what it is they are doing. Ask them what are the proportions of sand, gravel and cement which are required and they have not a clue.
Anyone who can swing a hammer has now become a carpenter.
Poor quality materials are readily accepted as being OK.
The challenge is to improve conditions without first breaking down the industry without bankrupting all of our contractors.
(Mr. Anderson made a presentation to the annual general meeting of the Jamaica Social Investment Fund last week. The excerpt above formed a part of his presentation)
Ivan Anderson is the Chief Executive Officer at the National Works Agency
