Full GCB hostels audit stymied by lack of info-audit firm

Design and Construction Services Limited (DCSL) was unable to provide a comprehensive audit on the construction of two Guyana Cricket Board (GCB) hostels at LBI and Anna Regina due to the “inconsistent and conflicting” information provided by the Board.

In some instances, the company wrote in its findings, pertinent information that was required was not provided by the GCB. The report, seen by Stabroek Sport,  indicated that since no record of payments were provided for the LBI training facility and hostel, DCSL could not have commented on actual payments made to the contractor, Shivnauth Construction Services. In the case of the Anna Regina facility, it concluded that it could not state whether it was worth the money spent on it. The state of the hostels was the subject of a fierce dispute between two factions of the board and Sport Minister Dr Frank Anthony subsequently ordered an audit.

“DCSL encountered several limitations in executing this task assigned by the Ministry to provide a comprehensive audit of the project for the LBI Hostel. Our attempt to produce a detailed systematic assessment of the project was severely impeded by the lack of critical information pertaining to the project.

The national cricket team going through their batting and bowling paces at the Georgetown Cricket Club (GCC) ground, Bourda yesterday. On the right Vishaul Singh faces the bowling machine while on the left pace bowler Brandon Bess bowls to Shemroy Barrington. (Orlando Charles photo)

“On the other hand, the limited information that was provided proved conflicting and could not be relied on for accuracy,” the report read.
The evaluations were ordered after the GCB’s Assistant Treasurer had highlighted irregularities with the accounts and some conflicting figures that the DCSL noted in the report.

Commenting on the LBI facility, the report indicated that the design drawings for the roof, foundation and floors lacked sufficient details. It was also noted in the report that with the comparison of the structural member sizes and on the original drawings with the Bill of Quantities (BoQ), there were noticeable differences.

It was highlighted in the BoQ that the foundation reinforcement catered for ½” diameter mild steel (MS) bars whereas in the drawing there were no provisions for this.
With this, the engineers concluded that since the “building was completed, it is practically impossible” to verify whether the contractor adhered to the drawings or BoQ in cases “where there was conflicting information.”

The 268-page document also pointed out that “there was no way of verifying whether the works were completed according to specifications since no document was submitted detailing the measured works for payments.”

“Consequently, it was impossible to evaluate the following: quantity and type of materials used, size of structural members in foundation, roof and floors and electrical layout of building.”

Anna Regina

The evaluation of the facility at Anna Regina was even more revealing in DCSL’s estimation, and it said that “we have come to the conclusion that unless a breakdown of payments made to the contractor is provided, one cannot conclusively state whether the facility is worth the amount of money expended.”
According to the document, the contract was signed for a corrected amount of $24,780,260. However, calculations in the BOQ revealed that the sum should have been $25,012,275.

Further, the report notes that due to the lack of information concerning variation works and the inconsistency and conflicting information in the financial records provided, DCSL could not accurately quantify the amount of money spent on the project. It said it had deduced an approximate amount of $33,037,732 under certain assumptions—a figure $4,200,701 in excess of the original contract sum plus variation works which can be accounted for.

“A review of the BoQ highlighted quantities for materials and members which were not illustrated in the design drawings,” the report also noted. It also said that the preparation of the bills was poor, referring to the absence of a bill number and name. This resulted in the auditors numbering the page in order to make proper reference. In other instances quantifiable bill items were either “over-quantified or under-quantified.” On the other hand, many bill items “could not be recalculated.”

An example of this was the foundation strip (1’-6” width x 10”), which was not a part of the design drawing, DWG No. S-01R – Foundation Plan. According to the report, the foundation strips in their drawing were specified as 3.75ft and 2.5ft throughout.

“There were numerous inconsistencies between the design drawings and bills of quantities. For example the design drawing shows a “police cap” roof with closed boarding ceiling and the BoQ caters for a truss roof design, (ii) the design drawings show sash windows and fixed glass windows and the BoQ cater for louver windows only…the BoQ caters for three types of reinforcement bars in the foundation whereas the design drawings correctly show two types.

“The design drawings could not be relied on for accuracy either. Several inconsistencies were also encountered in the payment records,” the report said.
Further, the firm in its conclusion said that the building seems structurally sound but the electrical fixtures and plumbing were defective and in need of corrective works. It also stated that the furniture was damaged and “appeared to be very poor quality.”

“Overall the hostel appeared to be in a poor state of maintenance with bushes and vegetation covering the outdoor practice pitches. The poor quality of the finishes within the building and the defective works reflect very poor supervision on the part of the consultant employed.”

In the DCSL’s report it was recommended that consultants and contractors adhere to the guidelines of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board. The document stated that with this there will be a clear and transparent selection process for contractors and consultants.

It was also stated that consultants and contractors be held accountable for rectifying all defective works and the GCB should be the custodians of these buildings. The report also charged the GCB to “pay avid attention to projects under their authority irrespective of the consultant employed, especially as it relates to payments.”