…MPI says rules followed in award of river bridge feasibility contract

THE MINISTRY of Public Infrastructure (MPI) on Monday denied breaching the Procurement Act when it awarded Dutch firm LievenseCSO, the consultancy services for the feasibility study and design for the new Demerara River Bridge.

The Public Procurement Commission (PPC) in an investigation report on the award of the contract said, the MPI’s contract with the Dutch firm breached the country’s Procurement Act. According to the report released by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo, last week, the MPI failed to heed the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) advice to retender the project after the first process to procure a company proved unsuccessful.

“MPI rejects and strongly condemns the misinformation campaign by the Opposition Leader and what amounts to unwarranted attacks by him on the integrity of dedicated public servants,” the Ministry said in a statement Monday. It added that around the same time of reaching agreement with the NPTAB on the annulment of the process, an unsolicited proposal was received from LievenseCSO Infrastructure & Environment with Econovision and Ace Consultancy, one of the shortlisted firms.

The MPI in an attempt “to set the record straight” said advertisements were placed in November 2015 for the feasibility study for the new Demerara River Bridge. An Evaluation Committee was established by the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) and that committee comprised of Balraj Balram (Coordinator) Permanent Secretary, MPI; Patrick Thompson, Chief Transport Planning Officer, Work Services Group, MPI; Rawlston Adams, General Manager Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation and Omar Bispat, Senior Engineer, Central Housing & Planning Authority, Ministry of Communities.

23 COMPANIES
The ministry said some 23 companies responded from foreign countries, including Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy, Denmark, China, India, Canada, United Kingdom, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago and the USA. All 23 submissions were said to have been reviewed and 12 companies were shortlisted. The 12 were called upon to submit a detailed proposal but only two of the companies submitted the document as requested.
The shortlisted companies included China Railway First Group Company Ltd. – China and MMM Group Ltd. & CEMCO Inc. – Canada/Guyana. Those two companies were the only companies which provided detailed proposals.

The other shortlisted companies were Proficenter Negocios em Infraestrutura – Brazil; WSP Caribbean Ltd – Trinidad & Tobago; COWI A/S associated with Lagoon Design Consulting – Denmark/Guyana; Politecnica Ingegneria e Architettura Soc. Coop. in association with Marcel Gaskin & Associates Ltd. – Italy/Guyana; Ballast Nedam – Netherlands; LievenseCSO Infrastructure & Environment with Econovision and Ace Consultancy – Netherlands/Suriname; Mott MacDonald Ltd. & SRKN’gineering – United Kingdom/Guyana; Egis International – France; China Harbour Engineering Co. Ltd – China and RITES LTD – India.

Meanwhile, those companies which were not shortlisted included: Stunning Nissi Inc with subsidiaries Naim Land Sdn bhD and Naim Engineering Sdn Bhjd – Guyana/Malaysia; C!TE in association with RNV RUSTWIJK & RUSTWIJK – Suriname; Vicar Enterprises Ltd – Trinidad & Tobago; WSP Caribbean Ltd – Trinidad & Tobago; Stantec International Ltd in association with Pedelta and Ground Structures Engineering Consultants – Canada/Guyana; CBCL Ltd and Dynamic Engineering Co. Ltd – Canada/Guyana; Stuart Consulting Group with Rahman & Associates Inc., C.B. Associates and BBFL Caribbean Ltd. – USA/Guyana/Trinidad & Tobago; COWI A/S associated with Lagoon Design Consulting – Denmark/Guyana; IPRO Consult GmbH with SaiKaam International Ltd – Germany ; Zhejiang Provincial Institute of Communication Planning, Design & Research – China and China Shandong INTL Economic & Technical Cooperation Group Ltd – China/USA.

“Having reviewed the two proposals, the Evaluation Committee deemed one of the two detailed submissions as being inconsistent with what was required and the other far in excess of budget, even after negotiations with the bidder. Consequently, with the agreement of the NPTAB, the MPI annulled the tender process,” the statement added.

This move reportedly left the government and the ministry in “a most peculiar situation of having faithfully and dutifully executed the outlined procurement process and having yielded zero result for a project which is of national importance.” As a result, the Ministry of Public Infrastructure sought a change of programme for the budgetary allocation for the Demerara River Bridge feasibility study. This request was granted by the Ministry of Finance.

It was then that an unsolicited proposal was received from the Dutch company, one of the shortlisted firms. The said proposal reportedly provided the full suite of professional services required for the feasibility study. “In full disclosure and transparency, the firm which had considerable technical expertise and capability, was invited to make a presentation to a multi-stakeholder group including representatives from MPI, Ministry of Finance and other agencies.”

That stakeholder group considered the presentation consistent with what is required for a complex, technical matter and at a reasonable and competitive price which would deliver value for money. “Having regard to the fact that this was an unsolicited proposal for a matter for which a suitable candidate was not found after a rigorous and lengthy tender process, and there being no established procurement rules for dealing with unsolicited proposals, a Cabinet Paper was prepared on the matter on November 18, 2016 and submitted for Cabinet’s consideration,” the MPI statement read.

On November 22, 2016 Cabinet took the decision to approve $103,978,580 being used from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation (DHBC) for funding of Stage 1 and $57,535,740 being used from the DHBC for the funding of Stage 2.
“MPI reiterates that lengthy procurement procedures were faithfully followed which did not yield suitable results. Having, thereafter, received a proposal which satisfied the government’s requirements for this project of national importance and given the relevant time constraints, it was felt that it was in Guyana’s interest to take advantage of the proposal. It is for this and other stated reasons that Cabinet’s approval was sought,” the statement noted.

INCONVENIENCE TO COMMUTERS
The Public Infrastructure Ministry reminded that several measures had to be put in place to accommodate the large volume of traffic utilising the Demerara Harbour Bridge (DHB), in an effort to reduce inconvenience to commuters. Evidence of this was seen when traffic heading west on the DHB on weekday mornings, is stopped to accommodate two lanes of traffic on the West Bank and West Coast Demerara, and this is the reverse in the afternoons.

“There is and has been an urgent need for a new bridge across the Demerara River and government is cognisant of this and has taken every decision, within the law, to ensure that the realisation of a new bridge is not unduly delayed. The people of Guyana deserve nothing less,” the statement added.

The MPI described Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo’s move to release the report as part of an “unfortunate and misguided campaign”. “…this Government remains committed to serving and improving the lives of the Guyanese people with utmost transparency and highest level of accountability,” the statement concluded.

According to the PPC report, “only MMM Group (Canada) in association with CEMCO achieved the minimum technical score of 80 points set, as a requirement to pass the technical evaluation.” Their bid price was US$848,950, which exceeded the budget of US$800,000 set for the project.

The report noted that since the bid price exceeded the budget, a recommendation was made for the procuring entity to engage the consultant in direct negotiations to determine a suitable price. As such, NPTAB’s chairman wrote the ministry’s permanent secretary on July 27, 2016 supporting the recommendation for negotiations. The MPI entered into negotiations with the identified company but that process failed and NPTAB was informed of its decision to annul the tender, and reshape the needs of the project with a view to retender at a later stage.

It was on November 3, 2016 that the permanent secretary wrote the Finance Ministry seeking approval to reassign the funds approved for the project, within the ministry’s work programme for that financial year. Approval was so granted. NPTAB chairman on November 21, 2016 wrote the permanent secretary expressing the entity’s support of the evaluation committee’s recommendation to annul the bidding process and granted approval for MPI to retender the project. The project according to the report was not re-tendered.

The report said too that Minister of Public Infrastructure, David Patterson, by a memorandum dated November 18, 2016 called on Cabinet to consider and approve the use of funds from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation (DHBC) (Asphalt Plant Accounts) “to study the feasibility and to commence a contractual engagement with LievenseCSO, as of the 1st January, 2017.” Cabinet considered the memorandum and on November 25, 2016 approved $161.5M to be used from the DHBC (Asphalt Plant Accounts) to cover costs of the feasibility study for a new bridge across the Demerara River.