Dear Editor,
In SN of April 3, 2009, the Mr Lionel Wordsworth, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA) failed in his response to allay the fears of concerned residents of the Dochfour/Ann’s Grove/Two Friends/Hope communities who stand to have their lives disrupted as well as the social and environmental impact on their well-being adversely affected as a result of construction of the proposed flood relief Hope Canal (‘Studies by both local and international experts indicate that an additional outlet is required for the conservancy’). Instead, he took the opportunity to justify NDIA’s proposal to construct the canal based on the technical assessments which hav been carried out and to explain that an additional outlet is required for improved safety of the East Demerara Conservancy (EDWC) from extreme storm events, as well as give reasons for the chosen site.
However, the residents were pleading for a feasibility study to be carried out to indicate whether the technical justification is attractive enough not to justify a more detailed project preparation to include its physical and social environment, since a feasibility study will have to take this into account.
Details of the feasibility study which residents are requesting that NDIA conduct will depend on the complexity of the project and on how much is already known about the proposal. It will define the objectives of the project clearly.
It should explicitly address the question of whether alternative ways to achieve the same objectives may be preferable, and it will enable the decision-makers to exclude poor alternatives. The feasibility study will provide the opportunity to shape the project to fit its technical imperatives as well as its physical and social environment, and to ensure it is financially and economically viable. Unfortunately this project was prepared solely on its technical merits, and an opportunity was not given to re-examine every aspect of the project plan, such as its social and environmental implications, and to assess whether the proposal is appropriate and sound before substantial scarce resources are committed. It is hoped that should external financial assistance be sought for construction, the bilateral assistance agency will demand a rather careful appraisal to assure residents that there are no serious flaws in the project. If there are, then the project plan will have to be altered or a new plan developed altogether before funding is approved. Under such circumstances the project would be back to square one.
With respect to the design contract award, the CEO was vague explaining the bidding process. He seemed to be confused as to what constitutes a competitive award from a negotiated one, since with a competitive award the decision is made solely on the basis of price and the lowest bidder is usually awarded the project.
By his own admission and for whatever reason, NDIA carried out negotiations with consultants who had submitted bids for this project and this by itself nullifies any semblance of competitiveness; also because the evidence suggests that there was only one responsive bidder with which NDIA negotiated its award.
Finally, the CEO should have stated in his letter for the benefit of the public that the bidding period was extended and closed on January 27, and inform them why this was necessary. Also, at the bid opening it was reported that only two bids were received, one from E&A Consultants and the other from SRKN/Mott MacDonald, Consultants. No mention was made of CEMCO as one of the bidders. However, CEMCO was reported as one of the principal awardees for the design contract. The CEO may wish to comment on this apparent discrepancy in the bidding process since a change of this nature in public agency bidding would suggest that the contract award was negotiated and not competitive.
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address supplied)
