ALL IN ONE MONTH?

Apr 23, 2010 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Previous contributions in this column on the US$15M road contract award to Synergy Holdings Inc. have tended to treat the road contract as separate from the construction of the hydroelectric facility for which there is already a “sponsor”.
However, other commentaries highlighted the fact that this Amalia Falls Hydroelectric Project was the brainchild of Synergy Holdings Inc. and has been in the pipeline since 1997. As such that company was totally familiar with the need for roads to realize the hydroelectric facility and given its long years of involvement in developing this project would have accrued an information advantage when it came to the road project.
Synergy Holdings Inc. also had a thirteen-year jump on the other companies involved in the prequalification process since this project was its baby. For this reason, it was argued that Synergy Holdings Inc. ought to have been disbarred from tendering for the road construction contract. It is a cogent point.
But the question of fairness becomes more accentuated considering the actual invitation for prequalification. Information has come to hand that indicates that the companies only had one month to prepare their bids. Now this is far too short a period, considering the fact that this road project would require major engineering, topography and cost surveys.
Sections of the road traverse forested terrain which has to be cleared. The companies would have had to study the layout of the land, the drainage of the land and undertake surveys as to where best to cut the proposed road and determine what would be required to build the road according to specifications. Since heavy duty equipment is expected to traverse this road, it requires even more detailed engineering assessments. It is quite a task for this to be achieved in the one month that was said to be given for tendering. This is by far too short a period for any company to prepare adequately for a project of this nature. No wonder then there was this great variance between the bids submitted.
On the other hand, a company which would have had thirteen years of familiarity with the area and the terrain, as well as with the overall project would have a discernible advantage when it comes to preparing the bids for this project. From this perspective one begins to appreciate more the arguments of those who, in the interest of fairness, would have liked to see Synergy Holdings Inc. debarred from tendering for the road construction aspect of this project.
But while one month is way too short, what is even worse is that information is coming to hand which suggests that the invitation for bids were for the period mid-December to mid-January.
Now anyone familiar with the end-of-year business cycle in Guyana would appreciate how much more difficult this makes it for local contractors. First of all, mid-December is a hectic time of the year for businesses in Guyana, and it often becomes more difficult for companies to really focus on preparing bids at a time when they are winding down their accounts for the year; construction staff are preparing to return home for the holidays and everyone is busy with the parties and social activities that characterize that period of the year.
The question therefore that needs to be asked is whether the interest of fairness was served by inviting bids from mid-December to mid-January? This clearly is not the best time to prepare bid submissions and even so, considering that the one-month period was way too inadequate for preparing the bid submissions. What were the authorities hoping to achieve by inviting bids during this period?
It is no wonder then that no major foreign engineering or construction company submitted bids. They would not have been able to do so in the one-month period and especially between mid-December and mid-January.
A few years ago, we had a Greek company win a major contract for bridges in Guyana. The work they did was fantastic and they left a good impression about how infrastructural work should be done, especially their practice of pre-casting the beams for bridges, instead of having to build them on site. Some local companies are now imitating this method.
The contractor for the Berbice River Bridge was also a foreign company and there were no major hiccups. The contractor for the Providence Stadium was an Indian firm. So we have had foreign construction firms engaged in major works in Guyana.
Why then would the authorities, wanting to develop access roads to a hydroelectric facility, one that is likely to be the largest investment in the history of this country, only advertize invitation for bids for one month? Foreign construction firms are not going to be able to prepare their bids in time. As such the whole process of competition is defeated because of the short time frame involved.
What is even more staggering is that information has come to hand that this road project is expected to be completed in eight months which includes two months for the mobilization of machinery. Given the absorptive capacity of Guyana, it seems highly ambitious that the requisite machinery, managerial expertise and other skills can be mobilized plus the entire works completed in eight months or for that matter, in time for next year’s general elections.

---

---