The $128,574.54 in double billings to the Transport Board by Trans Tech Inc, flagged in the last Auditor General’s report, may have been likely due to clerical errors.
This was the sworn testimony given by Managing Director of Trans Tech Inc Lloyd Brathwaite, who appeared before the Public Accounts Committee at Parliament this afternoon made available for public viewing beyond the gallery by live-stream on Youtube.
Accompanied by his attorney, former Attorney General Adriel Brathwaite, the Trans Tech head testified that he was only made aware of the discrepancies when the report was released last April, adding that he has since met with the Transport Board to have the matter investigated “from his end”.
However, he made it clear that any accounting discrepancy would have been as a result of procedural errors from both Trans Tech and the Transport Board, as payments of this nature undergo several checks and balances before they can be honored.
“I have full confidence in our accounting system, but it is not perfect… We must bear in mind that these are dated invoices that go back to 2014. These invoices go through so much checks and balances that I believe on both sides something would have gone wrong. These are not cash invoices, so they go through a process on both sides, so somewhere along the line there may have been an error, he explained, after being strenuously pressed on the issue by Senator Lucille Moe.
The Auditor General’s report said that the Transport Board was charged twice for the same work done on the same bus, on four occasions. The eight invoices totaled $257 149.08, which was $128,574.54 more than was due. According to the report, the only differences were the invoice numbers on the eight invoices submitted by the supplier.
Brathwaite also came under fire for the frequency which transmissions were being replaced in the buses, bringing into sharp focus questions of quality assurance. It was charged that on 178 buses, there were 601 transmission installations during the period in question. In one case, a single bus received five transmission installations in 19 months while another had four in five months, even though the transmissions were guaranteed to last two years.
However, Brathwaite placed the blame for this at the feet of the Transport Board, noting that they did not carry out maintenance of the transmission systems with the required frequency.
“In the report, it was quite clear that the maintenance procedures were not adhered to. We do not have any control over maintenance, we only deal with the installation of the transmissions. The buses were not fit for purpose and they always had issues. You are talking about extreme duty vehicles; it is not just driving to work and park. Enhance maintenance was necessary to keep the buses going,” he said, noting that this was a matter which he broached with the Transport Board on more than one occasion.
It was at this point that Brathwaite took aim at the Auditor General’s report, seemingly questioning its consistency, as he pointed out that it failed to mention the frequency of engine failures, even though the Transport Board’s Special Project Report, had noted this as a major issue from 2014-2016.
“We have greater frequency of engine failures here in this report from the Transport Board and nothing is mentioned in the Auditor General’s report. In one year, we had 119 engine failures,” he said noting that there was a direct relation between engine failure and transmission failures. “If the engine overheats then the transmission overheats. Impact is on the engine first then the transmission, he said, adding that he has received several letters of recommendations from managers at the Transport Board, complimenting him on the job his company had done.
[email protected]
