The Tribune

THE admission that the contractor responsible when roof trusses at a school collapsed did not have a written contract or insurance is prompting a sense of déjà vu.

A statement issued by the Ministry of Works on Friday revealed that there was no contract, and no risk or liability insurance – information that apparently was not intended for public consumption, and which the government asked the press not to publish.

Quite why the public should not know such information is unclear.

Prime Minister Philip Davis meanwhile yesterday tried to explain the situation – though we’re not sure it’s any clearer for that.

He said that the contractor “had a contract”, before adding: “The question is whether it’s a written contract or an oral contract. He in fact had a contract.”

Mr Davis can certainly argue that, but it is not good practice. Now, what about insurance?

He said that “I understand the contractor decided that he would self-insure until all of the dots and I’s were crossed, which is not unacceptable”.

What does self-insure mean? Well, Mr Davis said: “You could self-insure yourself. He takes the risk, which he has done. He said the trusses has collapsed and I’ll make that good. That’s self-insurance. That is acceptable too if the ministry deems it appropriate.”

That does not sound like insurance as much as promising to fix the problem after you have caused it. That might cover some minor incidents – but what if something even bigger had happened?

Well, it already has. Cast your minds back to January 15, 2015, when Mr Davis was Minister of Works and a blaze broke out at a dorm at the Bahamas Agriculture and Marine Science Institute in Andros.

The contractor in that incident did not have insurance – though it took some while for that fact to emerge, including after Mr Davis had said there was a policy that had lapsed.

The contractor provided not a policy but a quotation for the policy.

That $2.6m structure literally went up in smoke – leaving the contractor fully liable. If he had paid an insurance premium, he would only have had to pay $23,746.65.

In this new case, it was a roof that fell in and the contractor appears to have the wherewithal to remedy the situation. No one was harmed and it can be fixed. But while thankfully it was no worse, what if it had been, with no insurance in place?

What has been learned in terms of processes and procedure since that BAMSI incident to prevent a recurrence?

According to former Works Minister Desmond Bannister, lacking a formal contract or risk insurance is highly irregular and against protocol.

He said: “The technical officers – the professionals – they would never release any work to be done without everything in place. So, this had to be a political decision, and the blame has to rest straight on the politicians who are involved.”

This was not a surprise project. Work on schools is long planned out for the summer months. Everything that was needed should have been in place – or the contract should not have been awarded.

All of which prompts another question – how many other contracts are there that have been awarded without the proper documentation and insurance in place?

If another incident similar to the BAMSI fire were to occur – heaven forbid – would we be in the exact same situation?

And given how many contract awards from this government have yet to be published, how will we ever know?

This should be a cautionary tale for the government – to reduce the risk of a more substantial incident ahead.