A damning report of a technical audit outlining numerous defects uncovered at the Kato Secondary School was yesterday presented to the National Assembly even as the firm responsible for the works defended its performance, while accusing the government of making the issue political and not requesting corrections as provided for in the contract.
“The issue has taken a deliberate, in our opinion, political slant… The building was under warranty and corrections could have been made. The government requested none,” contracting firm Kares Engineering said in a statement, while noting that it is prepared to meet the government to fix the defects.
On Wednesday, the Ministry of Public Infra-structure facilitated an onsite visit of the school, with the representatives of the consulting firm Rodrigues Architects Limited (RAL), which was the company that conducted the audit. There was ample evidence of poor construction, including unstable safety bars, termite-infested wood, cracked and crumbling concrete floors and walls, steel protruding out of the walls, and faulty installation of equipment in the science lab. The firm’s report has concluded that construction was done poorly in some respects in order to maximize profits.
The school was built at a cost of $728.1 million and the auditing firm has said that at least $144 million would be required to fix the defects. Kares Engineering had won the contract for the construction of the school with a bid of $691,972,139 back in 2013 and a timeframe of two years, from April 21, 2013 was given to have the construction completed.
After the report was laid in the National Assembly yesterday, Minister of Public Infrastructure David Patterson informed that it will set the precedent for all other reports conducted by his ministry as a means of ensuring public scrutiny. “Obviously this is going to be a blueprint for my ministry on all projects, whereby when we do another report we will lay them in Parliament for public scrutiny,” he said.
Before the objections of members of the opposition, Patterson, in tabling the report on the school, told the National Assembly that both the contractor and the consultant, in their defence, claimed that they were “pressured by members of the previous administration to complete the work… expeditiously because of elections period.”
The technical auditors have also said the same thing.
However, opposition members raised their voices and questioned why the minister was making a statement in the tabling of the motion.
This prompted Speaker Barton Scotland to point out to the minister that he was presenting the report and that he should “let the report be as concise as possible as is the normal treatment of reports….”
Patterson later said that the government is committed to completing the school.
In the report, the auditors state that in addition to the fact the works were poorly done, they believed that too often cost based considerations are “prioritized over professional competence,” with the award and the design of the Kato school contract being a classic example. It said too that the engineering design information was incomplete and unreliable for construction.
In addition, it pointed out that the bills of quantities were scant and in many instances imprecise and not reflective of the remote location of the project.
Construction done poorly to maximize profit
Based on the general poor quality of concrete work, reduced steel reinforcement and numerous substitutions of materials, RAL concludes in the report that the construction was poorly done to maximize profit.
It states too that the level of oversight by the engineer was “severely lacking and his clerk of works was most negligent in carrying out his duties.”
Further, the consultants state that the quality of material and workmanship was well below the acceptable standards and neither the contractor nor the project supervisor commented on this issue.
In correspondence to the Minister of Public Infra-structure, the auditor said that the design and supervision of the Kato School Project were severely lacking in architectural, structural/civil engineering and quantity surveying inputs. “This is as a direct result of selecting inadequately qualified consultants…,” the report stated.
The audit report states that many questions were not addressed by the supervisory consulting firm, Design Consultants Services Limited (DCSL), and Kares Engineering. “Arising from the late confirmation of a suitable site for the building and the appointment of the supervising consultant-engineer, certain problems such as: – the correct orientation and planning of the buildings were not addressed by DCSL nor has it been addressed in their responses, certain defects in the building its accommodation, planning and ventilation [were] similarly not addressed by DCSL,” the report states.
“The reinforced concrete construction is not in accordance with drawings/specification and though accepted in some areas of lower risk, is definitely not, where the safety of the occupants may be in jeopardy…the level of oversight by the engineer and his clerk of works is severely lacking,” it adds, while pointing out that DCSL relied solely on its claimed past record and that of the clerk of works of the Ministry of Education.
From its structural assessment, RAL states that all of the concrete members tested were below the specified strength.
While it reported that DCSL confirmed that the required strength was reduced, the auditors said that they saw no evidence of the structural design confirming its structural safety.
“The areas of major concern are –the first floor reinforced concrete corridor with 1,335lbs/in and the reinforced concrete stair ways -1,517lbs/in…also the corridor floor slab thickness is 3” instead of the specified 5” and the steel reinforcement is 3/8 diameter at 10×10 centers both ways compared with the ½” diameter at 6×6 centers both ways. The cut section of the slab indicated a weak concrete mix with many impurities,” the report notes.
“The stairway had concrete strength of 1,5171lbs/in (44% below specified strength) with no. 1 layer of reinforcement bars instead of no. 2. Also the waist of the stair varies from 31/2” to 5” with varying sizes of treaders and depth of risers,” it adds
RAL recommends that given that main traffic route is subject to heavy dynamic loading and cannot be retained in the present state, the corridor be partially demolished and reconstructed with a galvanized metal decking and the stairs be replaced with suitably designed timber.
“The concrete aggregate is generally unsuitable… the quality of the reinforced concrete is substandard and rejected in the first floor corridor and stairways…the timber used especially in the flooring is substandard, of unknown species sapwood and unseasoned. It is shrinking and cupping and therefore has to be redone…there are noticeable cracks all over the buildings…,” the report states.
The audit report goes on to explain that the plumbing/drainage works now require corrective measures, such as regirding of pipes, fixing of water seals and traps to walls and venting, among others. The external drainage pipes also drain onto the grounds and need to be redirected offsite.
Electrical installation was also criticized, with the auditor calling it “non-compliant with the recommendation of the electrical inspector.”
The company says that no certificate of inspection to electrical works was submitted and that government’s electrical inspector saw many questionable installations, such as loose conduits.
Prepared to fix defects
But, in its statement, Kares boasted of its professionalism and competence. “Kares Engineering is one of Guyana’s largest and most successful engineering firms with over 30 schools successfully completed. The firm has also completed several roads, wharves, bridges and numerous civil engineering contracts for both the private and public sector. Confidence in the firm’s capability is demonstrated by its ability to keep winning and successfully completing projects for both the Government and Private clients,” it said.
It also made a series of proposals to government to remedy the situation.
“Kares Engineering is prepared to meet with the Government of Guyana to discuss issues with the building and how they can be resolved,” it said.
Among its recommendations are coring and compression strength tests on the building, which it says is the only acceptable industry standard, to verify beyond doubt the strength of the concrete. Kares Engineering is prepared to pay 50% of this cost if requested, it noted.
It also proposed a discussion of repairs that are deemed necessary to the building. “Kares Engineering is prepared to fix defects which should have been identified under the defects liability period and to remedy those that are applicable despite the fact that the liability period,” it adds.
