$60 million shed devalues to $21 million

GPHC head said he had $16 million in his head

There is even more confusion surrounding the cost of the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC)’s waste processing facility and waste collection truck. Officials are now recanting earlier statements about the cost.

According to GPHC’s Chief Executive Officer, Michael Khan, the Hydroclave facility and waste collection truck cost a whopping $300M (US$1.5M). He was responding to queries on the project.

This figure was supported by Head of the Health Sector Development Unit, Keith Burrowes, who without providing a breakdown of how the project amounted to $300M, said that $240M was spent to purchase the Hydroclave Sterilization System and waste collection truck. Funding was provided by the World Bank through a grant.

Burrowes further stated that the remaining $60M was spent by the hospital to construct the facility to accommodate the equipment. This claim was acknowledged by Khan who said the money was spent to construct the shed, storeroom, to train personnel and airfare for the Hydroclave Canadian consultant.
Following the publishing of two articles in Kaieteur News on the exorbitant costs for the Hydroclave System and the storage shed the hospital issued statements clarifying the costs for both.

In fact, when GPHC issued its first statement it distanced itself from the purchasing of the Hydroclave System and waste collection truck.

The hospital had disclosed that the bid by the company awarded the contract for the truck and complete Hydroclave system was US$949,579, which left an unexplained sum of US$250,421 from the total which Burrowes had told to Kaieteur News.

Since then Burrowes has recanted his statement on the amount of money spent on the Hydroclave. He said that the project stemmed from a US$10 million grant for Guyana’s HIV programme.

A special appeal was made to the World Bank. In the end, the installation was done by the Georgetown Public Hospital.

Yesterday, nine days after Khan had promised to provide a statement on the $60M facility, he adjusted the figure he had initially provided.

According to the Chief Executive Officer, the $60M he quoted at the outset was actually $21M.

Khan insisted that there was no intent by the hospital to mislead or misrepresent the facts involved in the Hydroclave waste disposal matter.

Khan now says for the first time that $15M was provided by the Health Sector Development Unit (HSDU), an arm of the Ministry of Health. This was for the construction of the Hydroclave holding facility. The hospital maintained that the actual procurement of the Hydroclave system was handled by HSDU.

“The actual total cost for the completion of works to the facility was close to $21M, the difference (of approximately $6M) was funded by the Government of Guyana. Management wishes that this issue is brought to a closure as the facts have been clarified and the relevant personnel is open to any scrutiny as there was genuinely no intent to misinform or mislead the general public,” the GPHC said.
“The cost of the facility was inaccurately quoted as $60M during a telephone interview with a Kaieteur News reporter. The CEO, without reservations, admits to having misquoted the cost to have the facility constructed… giving a figure of G$60M, with the figure of $16M in mind…

“It is also noteworthy that the reporter was informed that the information being provided to her was in fact not concrete but an approximation,” GPHC said in the statement.

Observers noted the difference between $60 million and $16 million. Then there was the final cost of $21 million.

One commentator wondered at the true cost.

The CEO explained that the construction of the project was executed in three phases which included the demolition and disposal of existing bins and structure; construction of new waste holding area; construction of floor slab for main shed and office area and the initial construction of steel framed shed.

There was also the construction of a steel-framed shed; construction of two reinforced concrete bridges and rehabilitation of fence and gates. The last stage included materials, electrical and plumbing works, procurement of garbage bins and commissioning. There were costs for additional visits and training.