Prime Minister Samuel Hinds has selected the two engineers who will review the bungled Supernaam stelling and met them yesterday.
President Bharrat Jagdeo ordered the review of the currently inoperable Supenaam ferry stelling last week, following charges by construction company, BK Inter-national, that modifications done by the Ministry of Works led to its current state. The ministry has denied this and said it was Transport and Harbours Department that took over a facility “which was inadequate to handle the typical flotation as well as the arrangement to get on to the vessel’s for the heavy truck traffic from the Essequibo.”
Further, Minister of Transport, Robeson Benn said on Saturday that the Ministry of Local Government supervised the construction of the Pomeroon/Supenaam ferry stelling and later issued a certificate of completion to BK International even though the completed project had obvious defects. Contacted about this yesterday, Local Govern-ment Minister, Kellawan Lall said he had no comment. “I can’t say anything because there is a review underway,” he said.
The ferry stelling, now inoperable due to structural problems, was completed to the tune of $431 million of contract approved funds; an additional $17.2 million was expended by the Ministry of Public Works in modification works, Benn had said. The modifications included a drawbridge and a pontoon, both of which Benn said were “absolutely necessary” because the ministry took over the stelling “with great concerns”.
The drawbridge was a major source of contention between BK and the Works Ministry, with BK saying that it should not have been attached to the loading ramp and Benn saying that the installation of the 1.7-tonne steel drawbridge was to guarantee the safe offloading and reloading of vehicles, particularly trucks.
BK’s engineers, including Project Engineer Julian Archer had said that the loading ramp was designed to carry a maximum load of 20 tonnes. It was explained that in the original design, the linkage between the ramp and the ferry – a drawbridge – would have been on the ferry and released from the vessel onto the ramp. However, the ministry has attached the drawbridge to the ramp. It was the end beam, where the drawbridge is attached to the loading ramp, which buckled on May 11. Archer was the Project Engineer attached to Vikab Engineering Consultants – the Supervising Consultants for the project – at the time of construction. Last November he left the company and is now with BK international.
Archer had said that the excessive loading resulted in the structural failure of the end beam. He explained that if the original design was adhered to, namely a drawbridge from the ferry onto the loading ramp instead of the drawbridge from the loading ramp onto the ferry, then the weight would have distributed evenly and the end beam would not have failed.
However, in a letter to this newspaper published yesterday, engineer, Malcolm Alli said having looked at the various photos in the newspapers of the ramp and drawbridge for the Supenaam stelling, in his opinion as a chartered civil and structural engineer, the beam supporting the back wheel load of the truck at the junction of the ramp and the drawbridge would have failed regardless of whether the drawbridge came off the ferry or not, “since the main supporting beam appears to be both poorly sized and of poor construction”.
He said the ramp should have been designed for a rolling wheel axle loading, including impact loading that can increase the loading by some 50%. “When a heavily laden truck comes off the ferry, especially at low tide the driver has to accelerate to keep the momentum climbing up hill, and the back axle drops heavily on the supporting beam increasing the bending moment on the supporting beam. Placing an 18.5-tonne on the wharf does not guarantee adequacy of the design or construction,” he said.
“In my opinion this is also not the way to design the ramp. T&HD has drawings of a typical ramp and stelling and I am surprised the drawings were not given to the designer as a guide,” he added. Alli said he was not prepared to comment further on other aspects of the design, construction and supervision of the work, “except to state that the quality of engineering work has sunk to a new low in Guyana”.
According to Alli, the consultants should compensate the government to effect repairs and the government should ensure that all consultants carry liability insurance guaranteeing their engineering work against failure.
Benn on Saturday had also said that flotation was a major issue at the facility, noting earlier defects as identified by his ministry had not been addressed by BK International. According to Benn, economic reasons guided the ministry’s decision to take over a defective stelling. The ministry was losing millions in fuel costs every month in the Essequibo area, he had said, adding that the new Supenaam facility was estimated to save around $1 million a day once it was operational. The stelling opened for use on May 8 and was forced to close on May 11 after the end beam of the loading ramp buckled when vehicles were being loaded onto a vessel.
Benn had said that his ministry had openly criticized the works carried out by BK International prior to taking over the stelling. The criticisms ranged from the finished quality of the stelling, the integrity of the ramp and the flotation of the pontoon and its durability, among other things. Benn said his ministry submitted a report on the facility in December last year and had pointed out its concerns in addition to raising further questions about the general integrity of the structure which BK International constructed.
The ministry installed the drawbridge and another pontoon at a cost of $17.2 million. Benn said his ministry could not have foreseen the “other issues” surrounding the facility, issues which he said included the strength of the steel works and the integrity of the end beam. He said the end beam was not constructed to withstand any pressure.
BK International has said that it completed the project to the exact design and specifications required of it and it was certified and handed over to the government as a completed project. Tiwari had accused the Works Ministry of “wilfully” damaging the structure.
