Dear Editor,
The letter captioned ‘Ministry obligated to adhere to World Bank’s guidelines for selection of consultants’ written by Charles Sohan and published in the Stabroek News of October 31, provides an opportunity for Ground Structures Engineering Consultants (GSEC) to provide clarity on the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) evaluation process. First GSEC would like to indicate that the MoA did not reject our bid. The MoA modified our score to that of a qualifying score with the expectation that we would withdraw our protest to the Bid Protest Committee. We will not acquiesce to the MoA request until the technical issues we have raised are addressed.
The MoA advanced GSEC’s failure to take into consideration the approved Construction Supervision & Quality Assurance Plan (CSQAP) and the Operation, Maintenance and Surveillance Plan (OMS) that were issued with the Request for Proposal (RFP) as one of the reasons for not initially providing us with the now qualifying score.
The following statements are taken directly from GSEC technical proposal: “The CSQAP mandates the performance of Proctor and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests on borrow pit material. The soil stability analyses require soil strength parameters. The CBR test, while indicative of soil strength, provides no information which is applicable to slope stability analyses. This test must be replaced either by the Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial (UU) compression or Unconfined Compression (CU) test. The CU test is no longer used by the more competent geotechnical engineering firms. The UU test should replace the CBR tests.”
Another statement in our technical proposal reads: “The CSQAP under the section titled Dam Monitoring mandates tests to assess increase in soil strength. This defeats the purpose of the one-dimensional consolidation and Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test with pore pressure measurements. These tests yield time to consolidation and shear strength – effective stress relationships. The soil strengths are therefore inferable from the percent consolidation which has occurred up to the time of interest. This data can be used to determine the increase in embankment safety factor with time and eliminates the need for additional field tests if pore pressure monitoring confirms the estimated level of pore pressure dissipation”.
Another statement in our Technical Proposal reads, “Equipment such as the vibrating wire piezometers and settlement plates will be installed in the embankment foundation before fill placement commences, if the specifications mandate that the actual foundation settlement must be monitored. The high tensile steel wire, for the vibrating wire piezometers and the staff of the settlement plates will be extended through the embankment as filling progresses. Slope inclinometers will be installed after the completion of construction work.” Instrumentation such as pore pressure transducers, slope inclinometers and settlement plates are integral parts of the dam surveillance equipment, as detailed in Section 6 ‘Monitoring and Surveillance’ of the OMS.
These quotes taken from GSEC Technical Proposal indicate full consideration of both the CSQAP and OMS and directly rebut the claims of the MoA. GSEC is not responsible for the evaluation committee’s inability to comprehend elementary geotechnical engineering principles. However, we are not prepared to have that absence of technical competence affect our sound technical position.
Charles Sohan’s statement that GSEC cannot lodge a protest to the World Bank is not substantiated by the World Bank document titled ‘Guidelines Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits & Grants’. Appendix 3 – Action by the Bank Section 13, specifically states: “Communications, including complaints, the Bank receives from consultants after the opening of the technical proposals will be handled as follows. In the case of contracts not subject to prior review by the Bank, any communication or its relevant extracts, as deemed appropriate, will be sent to the Borrower for due consideration and appropriate action.
The Borrower shall provide all relevant documentation to the Bank for review and comments. In the case of contracts subject to prior review, the Bank shall examine the communication, in consultation with the Borrower, and if it needs additional information, shall request it from the Borrower. If additional information or clarification is required from the consultant, the Bank shall ask the Borrower to obtain it and comment on or incorporate it, as appropriate, in the evaluation report. The Bank’s review will not be completed until the communication is fully examined and considered. Communications received from consultants involving allegations of fraud and corruption may warrant a different treatment due to reasons of confidentiality. In such cases, the Bank shall apply due care and discretion in sharing information deemed appropriate with the Borrower.”
GSEC has exercised its right to take our request for answers to the World Bank in accordance with the above guideline. The expectation is that the MoA will provide, to the World Bank, the clarifications GSEC has requested.
Mr Sohan’s support of the MoA contention that the project must follow the “contract document” is dangerous. This assumes that the technical issues related to sound implementation of the project are not relevant. The construction of the Hope Bridge approaches and the Charity Wharf both followed the contract document and lacked technical soundness. The results of slavishly following the contract document are visible in the case of the Hope Bridge and invisible in the case of the Charity Wharf. GSEC takes seriously its responsibility to provide sound and technically defensible solutions to all its clients. The MoA can discount our concerns by frontally addressing the technical issues raised.
Yours faithfully,
Charles P Ceres
for Ground Structures Engineering
Consultants Inc
