VIKAB Engineering Consultants is no longer operating in this country, a source has confirmed, even as a report lays some of the blame for the bungled section of the Supenaam stelling at that company’s feet, while advising that it should be called upon to compensate for non-performance.
A source close to the Ministry of Works confirmed this to Stabroek News. While, Prime Minister Sam Hinds, whose ministry together with the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development were responsible for the construction of the stelling, has not yet responded to this newspaper’s queries.
The engineers who probed the failure of the docking system at the Supenaam Stelling in 2010 flayed both the supervisor VIKAB Engineering and BK International. They raised concerns about the integrity of the design and unauthorized changes that led to wasteful expenditure.
The report said that the quality of the work done as well as the workmanship associated with the contractor, BK International, reflected very poorly on the supervising capacity of VIKAB Engineering.
However, the report said, the shortcoming did not exonerate BK International from aspects of the poor quality work done.
VIKAB Engineering in collaboration with Canadian firm SNC Lavalin International designed the project. Both VIKAB and SNC Lavalin have had longstanding association with projects here.
The authors of the report Marcel Gaskin and Bert Carter were of the opinion that for the unapproved and poor works executed, there should be some recovery for the client, the Guyana Government.
They stated: “The client should write [to] VIKAB Engineering Consultants asking them to confirm, or otherwise, that all the design details issued in the tender document drawings along with all the changes reflected in the `as built’ drawings were done by them. If not by them, they should be made to say by whom. The stated party should then be written [to] asking for reasons and corresponding explanations as to the design shortcomings and why the offended party, the client in this case, should not be compensated.”
The report cited several major tasks undertaken by the contractor and added that “these additional costs appear to have only added to what appears to have been an already overpriced job.”