FRA clarifies dispute with MWH

Fiji Roads Authority Chief Executive John Hutchinson says the FRA has been involved in a protracted contractual dispute with MWH and the dispute is not about non-payment.

He is concerned that recent statements in the press made by MWH have created misconceptions about the nature of the dispute and the events leading to the termination of the contract between MWH and FRA.

MWH Global terminated their contract for the provision of road management services with the FRA on Friday.

Hutchinson believes MWH’s actions appear to be designed to cause disquiet amongst other contractors of FRA and employees of MWH and to damage Fiji’s reputation as a place for foreign companies to do business.

In a statement, Hutchinson says FRA has already paid MWH approximately $6m for 2016 and this is an acknowledgment by FRA that work has been done by MWH for which it deserves payment.

He says MWH is claiming payment of almost $20 million for its services so far in 2016.

The FRA required MWH to provide proper substantiation for this very large claim before payment could be made.

Hutchinson says the dispute has arisen because MWH has refused to provide that substantiation but FRA remains committed to paying to MWH all substantiated claims for payment and had advised MWH accordingly.

He says the FRA will hold MWH accountable under the contract and will pursue to its fullest extent with the legal rights available to FRA under the contract and the law.

FRA is also considering whether there may have been misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the Commerce Commission Decree.

If this process identifies overcharging by MWH, FRA intends to enforce its legal rights to seek a refund.

Hutchinson says there has been considerable speculation linking the deportation of two MWH employees to the contractual dispute with the FRA and that somehow the FRA was responsible for their deportation.

He says this is factually incorrect as the attempt to link the two does not bear scrutiny.

He adds the FRA has no authority or power to affect or influence the deportation of any person.

Hutchinson stresses the FRA is not empowered to decide who stays and who leaves the country as that is a decision for the Government.

He says they had legitimate concerns about the conduct of those two employees in that one had issued threats to an employee of FRA about consequences to FRA if MWH's demand for payment had not been met whilst the other had unlawfully written to third parties disclosing details of the dispute that were commercially in confidence.

He says not only was such conduct in contravention of the contract but it appeared designed to put unlawful pressure on FRA from other parties to resolve the dispute in the manner demanded by MWH.

He adds the FRA informed the Government of these actions.

Hutchinson says the Government felt the need to take steps to cancel their work visas in the national interest.

FRA’s contract for Professional Services with MWH was due to expire on 31st December 2016 and the contract was not being renewed.

Hutchinson says MWH has been aware of this for a considerable period of time.