Dear Editor
There is generally restricted information released on the new Demerara Bridge by the government and whilst the latest release by the Ministry of Finance, on Saturday last, was meant to dispel suspicions raised by the opposition, questions are instead increased.
Citizens were told that the government is seeking an agreement on terms with bidders, and whilst such terms “would serve the country’s best interest”, the government, amazingly, is unprepared to further disclose specifics of the engagement. However, it is fundamental that bids for a project anywhere near the magnitude of the new bridge must include pro-forma contractual terms as an integral part of defining the project, as much as the drawings, specification and/or bills of quantities. This is for the purpose of full transparency of the project circumstances, equality of treatment to all bidders, and to avoid any modicum of doubt as to what the sealed bid price must include for. This practice is also followed to obviate the need for any post-bid negotiations, which are prohibited by procurement legislation. In light of this, an arrangement where the cost and financial terms are to be negotiated afterwards with individual bidders, as stated by government, borders on recklessness.
This writer had cause to write on the intolerable ambiguity of inviting lump-sum bid alternatives for the bridge, under a previous administration, on both a design-build-finance basis and a design-build-finance-operate-maintain basis (read, toll-financed basis) at the same time. (See SN 30 Sept 2017). The latter requires not a specification, but rather a prospectus-like document to attract investors, with further talks with selected investors and their bank, which may well further require National Assembly approval before signing on. The process previously stalled because consultant bids exceeded the respective budget. The new government is proceeding the same way, has invited bids in ambi-guous alternatives, and is determined to soldier-on, buoyed up by budget support from oil revenues. The names of four persons, who all seem to be above reproach, have been released as tasked with the awkward job of the negotiations, and they started work last Christmas Eve. This piece of information release by government is welcomed but more is needed:
First, the evaluation report which caused Cabinet’s ‘no objection’, now rendered superfluous, and must be disclosed, complete with the
documents of the terminated negotiation. This should be done readily since, when in opposition, the present decision-makers called repeatedly for release of reports concerning retender of bridge consultants. Next, government should cease post-bid negotiations in the interest of equality and transparency. If as made out, there are only technical terms to be settled by the Ministry of Finance, these can be put in writing in a common document and retendered under the management of NPTAB. A shortened tender period would be appropriate. Finally, citizens must remain alert to the fact that any change in prices to the Demerara Bridge bids already concluded, are also prohibited under current procurement legislation.
Sincerely,
Donald Rodney
