Rebuttal to GGDC clarifications
Despite Mark Williams’ attempts to revise history (Letters, 9/19/14), the fact remains that it was Peregrine who signed the original agreement with Clark Development Corp. (CDC) in April 2006 and paid $20,000 earnest money for the right to develop the site while evaluating it for its technical viability and financial feasibility.
Peregrine conceived and developed the conceptual master plan, marketing brochures, business plan, financial model, and initial environmental and land use studies, spending almost $1 million. It then used these materials to solicit third-party investors.
In early 2007, a Kuwaiti investment group, Kuwait Gulf Link (KGL), expressed interest at the behest of its managing director, Robert Soussa. This led to the signing of a consultancy agreement with noncircumvention terms granting Peregrine exclusivity should KGL proceed to invest. Mr. Williams had not yet joined KGL.
Peregrine retained Palafox Associates on June 7, 2006, with a $15,000 payment to assist refinement of Peregrine’s conceptual master plan as well as Primenres and CRL Environmental to conduct site surveys and environmental studies, again well before Mr. Williams entered the picture and over two years before Global Gateway Development Corp. (GGDC) signed its lease with Clark International Airport Corp. (CIAC) in 2008.
Coincident with the signing of the CIAC lease, Peregrine and GGDC signed an engineering, procurement and construction management (EPCM) agreement ceding total exclusivity to Peregrine as the sole developer and prime contractor. The EPCM also required GGDC to provide all funding, in advance, to meet all cash flow requirements and specifically required these funds be deposited in a joint working capital account (WCA).
It was Peregrine’s responsibility to execute all work and pay all bills from the WCA. It was GGDC’s sole responsibility to fund and replenish the WCA.
All contracts for work were between Peregrine and its subcontractors. GGDC has never had privity of contract with any vendor, supplier or contractor. GGDC’s privity was solely with Peregrine as the exclusive developer and prime contractor.
Early in 2013, because GGDC did not have sufficient money to meet cash flow requirements, Peregrine infused its own money to pay project costs. In February 2014, after GGDC was in a better cash flow position, Mr. Williams approved and paid $8,363.70 interest on the loans from Peregrine. GGDC has continuously underfunded the project. Only 35 percent of horizontal infrastructure and only 95 percent of one building have been completed in six years, in contrast to the rest of Clark which sold out all available land.
There was no lack of locator interest. It was only a matter of insufficient funding that limited development. Several locators were ready to sign; unfortunately, GGDC did not have the funds and placed unrealistically high hurdle rates on these initial locators. Further, the EPCM required GGDC to fund construction of several “spec complexes” to spur development and stimulate demand. Despite these spec complexes being fully designed by architects Coscolluela, Lichauco and Macalino, they were never started because of insufficient GGDC funding.
Peregrine is fully transparent and will open its books for inspection to support all statements made. Perhaps government officials, the media, and others should demand the same of GGDC.
—DENNIS L. WRIGHT,
president and CEO,
Peregrine Development
International Inc.
