Updated | Labour questions real version of events at Smart City

The ministry for infrastructure, transport and communications has restated its position that the construction of Smart City Malta is proceeding ahead of the contracted schedule.

The ministry said Smart City investors had already poured some $26 million of their capital outlay, without bank loans, in the project to finish the second and third office blocks.

“There is no ambiguity: Smart City will welcome ICT firms and create employment in this sector,” minister Austin Gatt said, and denied claims that the government had broken its contractual conditions with construction firms.

“Labour and its MPs should go to the project site and see for themselves the progress being registered,” Gatt said.

Labour MP Michael Farrugia said the government was obliged to explain the proper version of events over the state of play and construction work at Smart City.

“Nobody can deny that the jobs promised by Lawrence Gonzi’s government and contracted by Smart City have unfortunately not yet come into being,” Farrugia said.

“Last week minister Austin Gatt said it was not Smart City’s fault but the fact that a pumping station was not removed as had been scheduled in 2008. On Sunday, Gatt changed his explanation saying everything was moving ahead of schedule,” Farrugia said.

The MP said Labour wanted to see Smart City finalized as promised and called on the government to offer a proper explanation of what was going on.

Contractors Ballut Blocks Services and Bonnici Bros have presented documents in Court in which they refute Smart City’s allegations that the contracted work was not delivered on time.

The BV Joint Venture presented documents in which Smart City is alleged to have offered them ‘acceleration costs’ after they finished the work earlier then planned.

“In a letter of 5 August 2010, the engineer on behalf of the employer (Smart City) made an offer to the contractor for acceleration costs. This offer was without any reservations or condition and constitutes an admission and confirmation by the employer and the engineer that contractor finished the work ahead of time,” the document reads. “It is contradictory now for the employer to claim for delays.”