DCM was awarded a $5,006,350.70 contract on Dec. 13, 2007 for the rehabilitation and repair of seven engines at Power Plant 1 within a 90-day period, but its schedules of value for the engines were identical, Cruz said.
“As if they assumed that the scope of work and parts needed were the same as the other engines,” he added.
There were identical descriptions of engines 5, 6, and 7 all with similar bidding amount of $782,575.78 — engines 2 and 3 also had a $595,633.39 bidding amount, Cruz said.
CUC should investigate DCM/EEI rather than paying them, Cruz told CUC Executive Director Antonio Muna.
Last month, CUC declared the DCM-EEI to be in default of the contract since it failed to rehabilitate the seven engines on time.
CUC also contracted Mitsubishi Corp. for $2.28 million.
CUC’s other contractors and vendors involved in the repair of Power Plant 1 were CB Tech. for $375,700.00; SAI Traders, $431,300.00; South Pacific Engineers, $25,440; IMSE BUBA $3,534; and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., $21,910.
Cruz said DCM-EEI failed to achieve 90 percent of the nameplate capacity of each engines contracted for repair.
Engines 2 and 3 with nameplate capacities of 7.27 megawatts only produce 5 megawatts, Cruz said.
He added that engine 6 with a 13.04 megawatts nameplate capacity only produces 5 megawatts, bringing to 9.816 megawatts the total capacity not delivered.
According to Cruz, even if the DCM contract was terminated., CUC should still hold the contractor responsible and accountable for its “inaction inexperience and frivolous claims of having the necessary expertise to repair of power plant engines.”
