Lawyer for the Ghana First Company limited, a waste management firm, Charles Bentum, has challenged contractors who claim the company is indebted to them to submit progress of work certificates for payment.
The Ghana First company, under a Public-Private Partnership with the government is constructing 10,000 units of modern automated toilet facilities across all Metropolitan, Municipal and Districts around the country. The company subsequently engaged other contractors to work on the project in order to meet project timelines.
Some of those contractors on the program at a recent press conference alleged the company has refused to pay them though they have finished substantial part of the contract. They alleged that the Company tricked them into believing that it had funds to make 60% of the contract sum after a collaborative visit which has been done, however nothing has been paid to them since executing their part of the contract for over a year now.
But in a press statement issued by Mr Bentum, the agreement between the company and the other contractors was clear on terms of payment. According to him, both parties agreed that payment will be made after full completion of the entire project in conformity with contractual terms. Quoting relevant portions of the agreement, Mr Bentum said Clause 5 among other things stated as follows, “that the Contractor agrees that the Contract is a Turn-Key Project and that the Contractor shall be paid only upon full completion and hand over of the entire project.”
The statement further added that, “the agreement does not vest any contractor with any such entitlement as regards payments pending final completion and handing over of the project.”
From the foregoing, the lawyer intimated that the company “therefore, without any doubt reserves the right to uphold this said payment when defects are detected after collaborative site visits and inspection. Payment will, therefore, be done after these defects are remedied by the contractor.”
Mr Bentum, therefore, wondered why after agreeing to the above terms, some of the contractors will run to the media when the principal has not reneged on his side of the arrangement.
“Inspections conducted by the technical team of Ghana First Company Ltd on the various projects under construction reveal that all the projects are below 60% of completion,” the statement said.
According to Mr Bentum, though the agreement does not vest any contractor with any such entitlement as regards payments pending final completion and handing over of the project, the company “may upon satisfaction of the work done so far pay 60% of the contract sum payable to the contractor.”
This he argues is purely discretionary and will therefore be wrong for the contractors to construe this as obligatory.
“Notwithstanding the clear position of the contract between company (employer) and the contractors, the contractors do not have any entitlements whatsoever to be paid the said 60% herein stated, it is regrettable that some contractors have misconstrued the provision to be a right reserved in them and in the result are making claims that suggest that the employer has defaulted in making such payments to them,” the statement said.
But Mr Bentum averred that the company out of what he describes as “humanitarian grounds” made payments to some contractors who were in need of funds to complete the project, but added the move was discretionary.
“Despite these clear Contractual arrangements, the employer on humanitarian grounds and with zeal to ensure the successful completion of the project has on numerous occasions payments of the total amount to some of the contractors who demonstrate financial need for such amounts. So far 104 contractors have benefited from such payment totaling five million, five hundred and eighteen two hundred Ghana cedis.”
The statement noted that the company upon an invitation to the aggrieved contractors “who claim they have completed 60% of the required specifications and have certificates to that effect, signed by the Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O) to submit such certificate to the head office for inspection, verification and due payment within 5 working days,” failed to show up, an indication that none of the aggrieved contractors have completed 60% of their work.