Log In

Reset Password

Ball denies conflict of interest at inquiry

Commission of Inquiry: Senator Vic Ball (Photograph by Akil Simmons)

Senator Vic Ball made no mention of his father having a 50 per cent stake in a company he recommended for a $1.4 million government project, the Commission of Inquiry heard yesterday.

Mr Ball, who joined the Upper House in November 2014 under the One Bermuda Alliance, was principal purchasing and supply officer for the Ministry of Public Works, under the Progressive Labour Party administration, when the contract to import aggregate was awarded to Harmony Holdings, which was half-owned by his father.

He took to the stand at St Theresa’s Church Hall on the fifth day of the tribunal, which is looking into the alleged misuse of public funds between the years 2009 and 2012.

Having considered several other bids, Mr Ball made the recommendation of Harmony Holdings to then permanent secretary Robert Horton, but made no mention of his father’s involvement, nor did he mention it to any others involved in securing the contract. He told the commission he did not want to “prejudice the process”.

Responding to questions from commission lawyer Narinder Hargun yesterday afternoon, Mr Ball said: “If I were to reveal that, it would have prejudiced the process. [Shawne] Tuzo [of Works and Engineering} would say ‘I’m going to give it to your father — wink, wink’. Or he would say ‘no, we can’t because it is your father’.

“In order for him to remain objective, I thought it best not to reveal that.”

Asked by Mr Hargun whether he felt conflicted in making the recommendation, Mr Ball replied “no”, adding that the contract had been the lowest the Government had paid for aggregate in ten years.

Mr Hargun referenced Bermuda’s financial instructions where it relates to using power for private interests that would “interfere with the independent exercise of judgment in the Government’s best interest” and the need to make all facts available to a superior in such cases where there may be a conflict of interest.

Asked whether he had considered this, Mr Ball replied: “No I didn’t. I didn’t feel that this particular contract was detrimental to the ministry and I had no undisclosed interests.”

Referencing similar stipulations in the Bermuda Government Employers’ Code of Conduct, Mr Ball said: “That did not apply to the purchasing section of the department.”

The inquiry heard that in 2009 there was a shortage of aggregate used to pave roads and, with only two months’ supply left on the island, purchasing more was deemed an emergency and therefore normal regulations could be bypassed. While the contract did go to tender, it did not go to full tender, which quickened the process.

A number of bidders were presented, including local company East End Asphalt, the Canadian quarry DM Rogers, as well as a late bid by Harmony Holdings, which was still awaiting official incorporation. A decision was made not to deal directly with the quarry, so it became a choice between Harmony Holdings and East End Asphalt.

Mr Ball told Mr Hargun: “My dad asked about it because he had heard from East End Asphalt that there was a contract. He asked me if he could bid and I said, ‘I don’t see why not’.” Mr Ball said he put his father in contact with a Shawne Tuzo within the ministry. A document was put together showing all the quotes, with East End Asphalt coming in cheapest at $46 per metric ton, the quarry quoting $47.12 and a later bid by Harmony Holdings, which came in highest at $51.50.

Mr Ball said that he became suspicious of the low price quoted by East End Asphalt and doubted whether it would be able to stick to budget. The ministry contacted the company, which said the reason its prices were so low was owing to the price of oil and the Canadian dollar.

Mr Ball said the company would barely make a profit by charging such a low price, as his ministry had looked into importing from the quarry directly and the price was almost the same.

Commissioner Fiona Luck suggested that varying shipping costs may have been a factor.

Second, Mr Ball said he did not believe East End Asphalt would be able to deliver the aggregate on time — the company had informed him that it would not be able to deliver “before June 16”, while the ministry needed to be assured of a mid-June delivery.

Finally, Mr Ball said that in previous years, East End Asphalt had charged much more per metric ton of aggregate and this played into his “professional decision” to turn them down, he said.

With these contributing factors, Mr Ball made the recommendation of Harmony Holdings to Mr Horton, who he said made the final decision to award.

Asked why he decided not to import directly from the quarry, which would certainly have saved time, Mr Ball made mention of benefiting local companies.

Asked whether in hindsight he would have gone about things differently, Mr Ball answered: “I would do it exactly the same way.”

Meanwhile, Major Kenneth Dill, the former Head of the Civil Service, denied taking control of a project to renovate the Department of Human Resources during another session of the Commission of Inquiry.

Contrary to the claims of Mr Horton, Major Dill said that he did not authorise or instruct in relation to the contract and was only involved in negotiations. He said he was asked four questions by Lucy Chung, technical officer for the Department of Architectural Design and Construction, including whether the scope of the project was to be reduced and whether it was possible to eliminate the building permit and tender processes.

Major Dill told Mr Hargun: “It is important to point out that at the time I was Head of the Civil Service, but I had strategic management of the Department of HR and so I had that responsibility.

“I did not give her an instruction — I answered an operational question put to me. I was not acting in my capacity of Head of the Civil Service, but as strategic manager.

“In essence, I had no responsibility for the management of that department whatsoever.”

In the interest of treating the Commission of Inquiry much like continuing court proceedings, The Royal Gazette has taken the decision to disable comments. This is done for the protection legally of both the newspaper and our readers