Consultant accuses Agri Ministry of bias and incompetence

Oct 28, 2016 News

When the Agriculture Ministry invited bids for consultants to supervise the reconstruction works to the north-eastern dam of the East Demerara Water Conservancy, the last thing it expected was a challenge to its competence. It also did not expect to be accused of bias.
This project was declared a Flood Risk Management Project.

Consultant
Charles Ceres

Today, even before it can offer the contract, it must answer to the World Bank – the entity that is funding the project. The money from the International Development Agency is in the form of a credit to the Guyana Government.
Six entities entered bid proposals. Three of them were from overseas—Royal Haskoning DHV out of England, Studio Pietrangeli out of Italy and WAPCOS out of India. The local bidders were Ground Structures Engineering Consultants Inc, SRK N’gineering and Associates Limited and Caribbean Engineering and Management Consultants Inc (CEMCO).
The Agriculture Ministry through its Agriculture Sector Development Unit invited the bids on May 6, 2016 and announced that a firm would be selected under the Quality and Cost-based Selection procedures.
On July 11, 2016, Permanent Secretary in the Agriculture Ministry, George Jervis, informed Mr Charles Ceres that his company, Ground Structure Engineering Consultants Limited, did not meet the qualifying technical score to the request for proposal for the supervisory services.
Three days later, Mr Ceres penned a letter to Mr Jervis requesting the reasons for the company’s failure to qualify. “This would provide validation of the fairness of the tender process,” Mr Ceres wrote.
Indeed, the Permanent Secretary replied submitting low scores for Technical Approach and Methodology, and for the Team Leader/Resident Engineer. The letter also noted, “Technical approach and methodology submitted did not take into consideration the approved construction supervision and quality assurance plan…
“We have also noted that in your correspondence you stated that the project is a geotechnical engineering-based project… the main objective of the project is supervision of the reconstruction…”
Immediately Mr Ceres signaled his intention to lodge a protest with the Bid Protest Committee. He also addressed the perceived shortcomings identified by the Agriculture Ministry.
“Examinations of the reasons advanced by the Evaluation Committee and our response clearly establish either bias or technical incompetence on the part of the Evaluation Committee.”
The conclusion was that the Agriculture Ministry had been predisposed to award the contract to either SRK N’gineering or CEMCO, although Ground Structures Engineering Consultancy appears to be the most capable.
“Equating our level of expertise in Geotechnical Engineering to that of SRKN’gineering and CEMCO clearly indicates bias. Issuing the same score to Ground Structures Engineering as these firms ignores the difference and facts about their capabilities,” Ceres wrote to the Bid Committee.
Observers now point to the Hope Canal Bridge that has collapsed and needs to be rehabilitated at a cost equal to the construction cost. The consultants were SRK N’gineering.
A subsequent evaluation blamed the consultants since they insisted that the contractor execute the project as passed by them and ignoring the reservations by the contractor.
One month later, Ground Structures Engineering Consultants received a letter from Permanent Secretary George Jervis informing that the company had qualified; that it had passed the technical evaluation.
When contacted, Mr Ceres said that his company did nothing to the documents submitted to the Agriculture Ministry. This re-evaluation had to be subjective, he said.
The Bid Protest Committee later scotched the contention by the Agriculture Ministry that no protest could be filed until after the contract has been awarded.
Ms Joann Bond, Chairperson of the Bid Protest Committee, wrote to Mr Ceres, “The Committee’s advice is that the proper procedure in this instance is that you lodge a complaint with the (World) Bank detailing your reasons for review.”
The contract has since been placed on hold, even as the Agriculture Ministry is facing the allegations of bias and incompetence.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News