Kenson maintenance technician Houston Marjadsingh said he was not responsible for supervising LMCS contractors on any given day during the project being carried out on Berths 5 and 6 at Paria. He said his role was to determine what portion of the work had been carried out and report this to his supervisor.
Marjadsingh was speaking on Wednesday at the Commission of Enquiry (CoE) into the Paria diving tragedy at an undersea pipeline at Pointe-a-Pierre.
Responding to questions from commission head Jerome Lynch, KC, he said he had seen LMCS’ scope of works prior to the day of the tragedy.
“I would have had to be able to follow the job as laid out in the scope of works to report to my supervisor daily on what percentage of the job was carried out by LMCS. I had seen the document some time ago, and to my knowledge nothing was different. I took instruction from my supervisor at all times.”
Marjadsingh said part of the scope of works was the underwater works were to be filmed at all times and handed over to Paria by LMCS at the end of the project. He said he was not aware of any recording being done on the day of the tragedy nor had he heard of any since.
He said he had not received an updated work schedule nor a daily look-ahead schedule from LMCS as stipulated in their responsibilities under the contract, but he was able to report to his supervisor on the progress of the job and its projected completion.
Lynch asked why Marjadsingh had not felt it was important to attend the toolbox meeting at Berth 6, given that more work was going to be done there than at Booth 5.
“I heard about the carber test at Berth 5 first, so I went there. I didn’t go across to Berth 6 with the LMCS contractors because they had a pirogue assigned to them and I would have had to catch a launch. Normally in the morning when I’m delivering permits, I would talk to the LMCS supervisors and tell them to make sure their guys did their toolbox meetings, as I couldn’t be in two places at once.”
Marjadsingh, under questioning from Kenson’s attorneys, confirmed that one of his duties was to monitor the job and ensure it was being performed in a safe manner, carrying out periodic checks as instructed by his supervisor.
