The recent award of contracts for the construction of the new schools reveals an astonishing differential between the lowest (and successful) bid and the tender submitted by another well-known local construction firm. In fact, the losing bid was half as much again as the winning one. If we were just talking about a few thousand dollars, perhaps the discrepancy would not be worth commenting on, but in this case the sums involved amount to several tens of millions. If one can safely assume that the bid specifications were exactly the same in each case, the government must be congratulated on some effective value engineering. However, if the successful bidder is going into this project in the hope that the inevitable change orders can be padded to compensate for a low bid, then clearly the situation is not so rosy. We also hope that the country is not headed into a similar situation that some homeowners find themselves in when a contractor has spent all the money agreed on but cannot afford to complete the job, leaving the customer over the proverbial barrel with no option but to find more money. But, let’s assume that the school projects can indeed be completed for the sums agreed, the sheer scale of the differential still raises some wider-ranging questions about construction costs locally. Housing costs have always been expensive here and the contrast in the school bids leads us to wonder to what extent construction costs are unnecessarily inflated across the board, to allow the contractors to make more than an acceptable profit. Indeed, the whole concept of affordable housing in the Cayman Islands has been one plagued with difficulties and controversy. Concerns were widely expressed in relation to the Affordable Housing Initiative established by the previous United Democratic Party (UDP) administration and the process by which such housing was constructed, focused largely on the disregard for the customary tendering process. Not only were there wholly unwarranted prepayments for work not done, but serious issues of immigration violations and political favouritism were also raised. And to no one’s surprise, the principal beneficiaries of what the Auditor General subsequently referred to as the “misuse of public funds” turned out to be well-known UDP supporters and activists. The current People’s Progressive Movement (PPM) government has also not adequately covered itself either in this area. The issue of housing many unfortunate Caymanians, still essentially homeless after Hurricane Ivan in 2004, remains unresolved after three years in office. In launching the mortgage guarantee programme last year, the Leader of Government Business, Hon Kurt Tibbetts, admitted that this would not address the needs of many who could not afford to participate. One has to question, therefore, what was the point in the first place. Mr Tibbetts also negotiated the sale of the affordable housing site in George Town, saying the land was too valuable for the project. We have observed before that, surely, the country has the resources to solve this problem once and for all, especially with some community involvement augmenting government action instead of inaction. In the meantime, the need for affordable housing in Cayman, whether it is to rent or own, continues to increase. For as long as anyone can remember, lip service at one extreme and highly questionable conduct at the other has been outpacing reality when it comes to moving towards affordable housing for this country, which is so quick to boast of the highest income per capita in the Western Hemisphere. The country has continually been offered shortsighted, band-aid approaches that show a complete misunderstanding of the real issues confronting the people who are willing to sacrifice to become homeowners and the needs of renters in the market. It is about time that the stakeholders in the area of providing affordable housing – and yes, this includes Government housing – came up with another model than the traditional methods of construction and financing. And a one-third reduction in construction costs, as we have seen in the case of the school contracts, would surely aid this process. This would allow deserving individuals, along with public and private sector stakeholders, to become partners and make the dream of owning a home an attainable reality. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment