Ministry of Public Infrastructure sets record straight on new Demerara River Bridge

[youtube url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1Ncu7_N9RY” width=”100%” height=”350″]

Monday, August 13, 2018

The Ministry of Public Infrastructure (MPI) notes various media reports which seek to question the process by which the feasibility study for a new Demerara River Bridge (DRB) was done.

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.

MPI sets the record straight by setting out the facts below:

1. In November 2015, an advertisement was placed for the feasibility study for the new Demerara River Bridge.
2. An Evaluation Committee was established by the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB).
3. The Evaluation Committee comprised:

– Balraj Balram (Coordinator), Permanent Secretary, MPI

– Patrick Thompson, Chief Transport Planning Officer, Work Services Group, MPI

– Rawlston Adams, General Manager, Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation

– Omar Bispat, Senior Engineer, Central Housing & Planning Authority, Ministry of Communities

4. Twenty-three (23) companies responded (see list below) from countries including Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy, Denmark, China, India, Canada, United Kingdom, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago and USA.
5. The Evaluation Committee reviewed ALL 23 submissions and shortlisted twelve (12) companies who were requested to submit detailed proposals.
6. Two companies submitted detailed proposals as requested.
7. 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
8. This then left the Government of Guyana through the Ministry of Public Infrastructure 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.
9. MPI then sought a change of programme for the budgetary allocation for the DRB feasibility study and this was granted by the Ministry of Finance.
10. 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 proposal provided the full suite of professional services required for the feasibility study.
11. 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.
12. That stakeholder group considered the presentation as being consistent with what is required for what is a complex technical matter and at a reasonable and competitive price which would deliver value for money.
13. 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.
14. Cabinet considered the matter and, on November 22, 2016, took the decision to:

– approve $103,978,580 being used from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation for funding of Stage 1.

– approve $57,535,740 being used from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation for the funding of Stage 2.

15. LievenseCSO was engaged accordingly to conduct the feasibility study

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.

Further MPI wishes to remind that several measures have had to be put in place to accommodate the large volume of traffic utilizing the DHB in an effort to reduce inconvenience to commuters. For example, all traffic heading west on the DHB on weekday mornings is stopped to accommodate two lanes of traffic from 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 cognizant of this and has taken every decision, within the law, to ensure that the realization of a new bridge is not unduly delayed. The people of Guyana deserve nothing less.

Despite the unfortunate and misguided campaign by the Opposition Leader, this Government remains committed to serving and improving the lives of the Guyanese people with utmost transparency and highest level of accountability.

Following is the list of 23 companies which responded. The first two (in bold) submitted detailed proposals and the first twelve were shortlisted by the Evaluation Committee:

SHORTLISTED & SUBMITTED DETAILED PROPOSAL:

1. China Railway First Group Company Ltd. – China
2. MMM Group ltd. & CEMCO Inc – Canada/Guyana

SHORTLISTED:

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

RESPONDED BUT NOT SHORTLISTED:

13. Stunning Nissi Inc with subsidiaries Naim Land Sdn bhD and Naim Engineering Sdn Bhjd – Guyana/Malaysia
14. C!TE in association with RNV RUSTWIJK & RUSTWIJK – Suriname
15. Vicar Enterprises Ltd – Trinidad & Tobago
16. WSP Caribbean Ltd – Trinidad & Tobago
17. Stantec International Ltd in association with Pedelta and Ground Structures Engineering Consultants – Canada/Guyana
18. CBCL Ltd and Dynamic Engineering Co. Ltd – Canada/Guyana
19. Stuart Consulting Group with Rahman & Associates Inc., C.B. Associates and BBFL Caribbean Ltd. – USA/Guyana/Trinidad & Tobago
20. COWI A/S associated with Lagoon Design Consulting – Denmark/Guyana
21. IPRO Consult GmbH with SaiKaam International Ltd – Germany
22. Zhejiang Provincial Institute of Communication Planning, Design & Research – China
23. China Shandong INTL Economic & Technical Cooperation Group Ltd – China/USA