GWI Audit finds…US$12M water treatment plant defective before going into operation

May 28, 2016 News

---

By Abena Rockcliffe-Campbell
Guyana will be made to repay yet another loan for monies spent on projects that are of little or no benefit to the people.
The People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) government took a loan from the Inter-American Development (IDB) to build two water treatment plants in Linden, Region Ten.
The government, through GWI, invested over US$12M to construct these plants. The plants were to significantly improve the water supply and distribution systems in Linden.
Even though both Plants were completed over a year ago, they are yet to be made fully operational. The numerous defaults are the cause for the delay. This was highlighted in GWI’s forensic audit report.
Auditors reported, “It seems at this stage that the Plants and distribution systems are not fully operational because of several defects and existing problems with the entire water distribution systems.”
The contract to construct these new Plants was awarded to UEM Inc., a Trinidad-based company via competitive bidding in 2012. The supervising consultant appointed was Egis EAU of France. The design of the Plants was done by HYDEA Srl of Italy.
It was indicated in the report that another contractor has been engaged to identify and provide recommendations on how to improve remedy the situation. The plants were expected to last for 40-50 years once they are not affected by construction defects.
The plants were supposed to service the entire Linden while the existing Mackenzie and West Watooka plants were to be used as back-ups. The overall intention was to reduce the operating cost associated with the treatment of surface water from the Demerara River consistent with the World Health Organization standard.
Before the construction of these Plants, Linden was serviced by five treatment plants and one booster station and these were intended to be decommissioned once the new plants become operational, while two plants (Mackenzie and West Watooka) would have been maintained as backups.
Because of the issues with the multi-million-dollar plants, the existing five water treatment plants and wells, some of which were to have been de-commissioned because of age, will continue to be used at high costs.
It was noted that all deviations from the original designs were approved by GWI after recommendations from the supervising Consultant, Egis Eau/SRKN Consortium. They also received a no objection from IDB.
When auditors visited Linden, the South Amelia’s Ward Plant was working but the Wisroc Plant was still undergoing testing. “During our visit, we noticed the storage tank walls have what looks like seepages/sweating of the outer walls.”
Engineers advised auditors that the designs for the Plants had issues/shortcomings from the inception. These issues were also identified and reported on by the contracting engineers, UEM Inc. in a detailed letter.
Auditors said that the Consulting Engineers responded to the report on June 13, 2013 but did not support some of the critical findings identified by the contractor. They concluded that the HYDEA’s—a respected engineering company—designs are adequate and should be followed.
Auditors noted that the plant at Wisroc had remedial structural works done.
The background to this was that GWI requested the Guyana Association of Professional Engineers (GAPE) to serve as adjudicator regarding faulty concrete that was poured by the contractor.
The Adjudicator reported that the concrete had defects in the form of honeycomb, cold joints and cracks.
The adjudicator was told that the consultant and contractor initially discussed the repairs of the concrete and the contractor was asked to submit a method statement.
The consultant subsequently issued instructions to the contractor to demolish the walls. They claimed that the defects at the joints went through the thickness of the wall and as such repairs cannot guarantee the integrity of the structure on a long term basis.
The consultant also said that the proposed method of repairs was not applicable because of the extent of the defects.
However, the contractor said that since the concrete reached the required strength, repairs should be allowed. The contractor referred to the relevant clauses in the contract which allows for repairs to the concrete rather than demolition.
Also, the contractor contended that the instruction to demolish was based on the suspicions of the consultant rather than any engineering approach and analysis. But the consultant said that the decision was based on observations.
The consultant contends that the extent of the defects is such that the 50 years expected life of the structure cannot be guaranteed if repairs are carried out.
There are concerns that the surface treatment could later develop small cracks which would leak, thereby negating the repairs. The depths of the defects observed from the chipping of the concrete did not take into consideration the actual depths that would be required to get the patching materials beyond the reinforcement. The consultant referred studies done in the North America and Europe showing that 50 percent of all repaired concrete fail within the first five years.
The consultant reported a much larger area of concrete with defects as compared to that reported by the contractor.
After consideration of both sides, the adjudicator recommended an additional layer of concrete to be placed on the inner and outer faces of the walls affected. The layer is to be 150mm thick
Other technical recommendations were also made. However, it was recommended that the cost of these works be borne by the contractor.
GWI’s board is addressing the issues and is looking to ensure that the plants are structurally sound before the company takes over and before the end of the defects liability period.
Auditors reported, “At present, GWI is advancing a leakage reduction program and mobilizing some Engineers with labour, tools and equipment to explore all areas so as to repair leaks and decommission old mains that may be causing significant losses within the system in order to address the distribution system challenges. In addition, the defective filter media was expected to be replaced by the end of February 2016 along with the installation of a geotextile membrane to improve the performance of the filter.”
Auditors recommended that GWI seek legal advice on how to proceed based on the terms and conditions of the contract.
“Failure to protect the interest of GWI may cost the company.”

---

---