Dear Editor,
In an SN letter of Dec 11, joint venture consultants CEMCO and SRKN’gineering expressed the view that the report on our observations regarding sub-standard work being performed at the Hope Canal Project which was published in SN on December 4 should have been dealt with discreetly among the engineering fraternity and the competent authority (NDIA) since as a result of our indiscretion and unethical discourse as claimed, they have had to address the inaccuracies as were detailed in our missive.
We would like to state categorically that there were no inaccuracies per se in what we reported on and the evidence speaks for itself. The review of documents, particularly the design for large and complex projects, is usually initiated by and paid for by the client who usually engages the services of independent experts/professionals to get a second opinion. The team of engineers and international experts who were employed by the consultants to review the Hope Project could not be considered independent as their loyalty was to their employer, the consultants and not the client. After all, ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune.’ Hence the contents of their review were never disclosed and therefore claims of approval of the design they were presented with for review cannot be considered gospel.
With respect to the timber piles, which were driven for the sea sluice foundation, the consultants claim that the piles were driven along a straight alignment. They recognized, however, that pile heads (and not the piles) deviated along certain grid lines and NDIA was aware of this.
If the civil works were being supervised in accordance with the requirements of the plans and specifications why did the consultants allow the contractor to drive so many piles out of plumb when the driving should have been stopped after the first few piles went adrift and the problem addressed before further driving?
We have suggested that the NDIA initiate an independent mid-term review of the project, which will examine inter alia: the geotechnical investigation which was taken at the sluice’s location prior to construction and which ascertained whether the 520 piles 120 ft long were indeed necessary to support the imposed loads or the design was an ‘overkill.’
The review would also examine the effectiveness of geotextile, which is being placed in waterlogged soils (for protection from fire destruction as the consultants claim) strengthening the embankment under those soil conditions. The performance of the consulting engineers as project managers would also be examined to determine whether the project was managed by people with a good working knowledge of construction practices and that they performed their duties with due diligence.
It would have been enlightening if the consultants had reassured us that the project will be completed on time and within budget, since at this point of time they have stated that no time extension has been granted thus far to any of the contractors, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that all is well and the project will be completed within the specified time-frame despite misgivings by the Minister of Agriculture. Hence we can expect no backdating for time extension since a claim for such extension has to be made in writing within the specified time period of its occurrence.
Finally, Mr Persaud, the former Minister of Agriculture had offered me (Malcolm Alli) a post as adviser to the Drainage and Irrigation Board, but the offer was declined as the terms and conditions were unacceptable.
Yours faithfully,
Malcolm Alli
Charles Sohan
