Dear Editor,
I read the Stabroek News report of May 7, 2017 about the collapse of the base for the Indian Arrival Monument at Palmyra, Berbice, with concern and some alarm. The Monument is arguably a show-piece of Indian art and design, with Guyanese collaborative construction, combined to establish a symbol of a well-known and revered aspect of Guyanese History. It is reasonable to assume that the Monument sponsors intend the Monument to last for another 179 years, as a conservative projection. (In 1992 a brief to a British designer for an extension to the Parliament building was “to design a building with a planned life of 200 years”). Instead the all-important structural base collapsed dramatically during construction.
The Stabroek News report placed emphasis on “how” the evaluators recommended the contractor, Alternative Contracting Enterprise. In fact from the names of bidders and bid amounts provided in the report, the same question of “how?” can be asked of the contractors selected for the other phases of the work. The awardee contractor in each case was not the bidder with the lowest price. Yet, from the information given, there is no award criteria listed or referred to. In such circumstances a tender board is duty-bound to award on the basis of price alone, as the only relevant criteria. Hence questions to the Minister of Education, the Permanent Secretary or the NPTAB, or to all the foregoing, should include whether or not the project team or the NPTAB ever stated award criteria to bidders, in advance of tender. If so, such criteria should be found in the invitation to bid or bid document itself, or in some communication which informs all bidders. Equal treatment of bidders is an important principle of the tender process.
The transparency principle also applies. Obviously there is no transparency if award criteria are not disclosed beforehand; in this regard, a bidder should not be put to the time, effort and expense of a tender submission, where had it known the full picture, it would know it has no chance of winning: that would be unfair. But transparency also means informing the unsuccessful bidder of reasons for its failure, in any special circumstances: this promotes openness. It also assists the competitive process by giving failed bidders a chance to improve in the future. From information given on the Indian Arrival Monument project: there are three bidders bidding less than the awardee contractor on one phase; one bidder bidding less on another phase; and five bidders, no less, out of eleven bidders, bidding less on the final phase. These seem to be special circumstances calling for an explanation.
If, but only if, the Board or the project team has violated the equal treatment principle, the consequence may be that aggrieved tenderers are entitled to monetary compensation. Nor is such compensation necessarily limited to reimbursement of the bidders’ wasted costs, since the Board or the project team as a public authority or public office holder is capable of committing the wrong of misfeasance, in addition to denying equal treatment. This underscores the seriousness of the tender process.
The above concern about procurement arises in every case of tender award, and must not be mixed up with a separate concern with the collapse itself. Rather, I suggest that concern about adequacy of design or of workmanship during construction must be resolved within the construction contract between the signatory Government officer and Alternative Contracting Enterprise, as parties to the contract. But first, questions should also be asked of the Ministry of Social Protection, or its relevant department head, on what response that Ministry has made to the collapse as a health and safety issue, since there is no news on this aspect.
There is no report of casualties or third-party property damage, but in Guyana’s fledging health and safety enforcement regime the opportunity should be taken on such a national high-profile incident to have reports clarifying and recording the incident, and possibly on exercising jurisdiction over the continued project. Health and safety should normally trump both quality and cost on construction works.
Next there is the important and desirable matter of a technical investigation on the cause of collapse as soon as possible, with a view to both accountability and avoidance in the future. In this regard the SN report indicates that work may be continuing on the project. If this is indeed so, it is unfortunate. Why has the work not been stayed by the relevant Government department (other than work to maintain safety) in order to facilitate an investigation? The outcome of such an investigation must not be pre-empted; it is also appropriate that an amicable resolution is sought on the cost and method of going forward.
As such, an investigator should be of independent standing, competent, and if possible mutually agreed by the parties (on the assumption that there are no casualties or circumstances that attract a criminal investigation).
SN’s news report reminds us that the government whilst in opposition frequently made poor contracting work a political target.
Steps outlined above could help de-politicise these occurrences. There can be several underlying reasons for defects and sudden failure on construction work. Before these are identified there can be no justification in asserting political grounds.
Yours faithfully
Donald Rodney
