The PPP/C is fast approaching three years left in office and there is still no identified contractor for the New Demerara Harbour Bridge (NDHB) even as the aging floating structure continues to be a literal bottleneck to development of the West Demerara, and a bane to commuters.
Much of this delay has to do with the numerous issues surrounding the conception and details of the original bid documents for the NDHB including:
1) The completely unrealistic deadline of 24 months for completion. There is simply no con-tractor who can complete this project in such a timeframe and therefore the $25,000 per day penalty for failing to meet the deadline is unacceptable.
2)The failure to separate a geotechnical survey of the river bed so as to ascertain the required depths of the supporting piles. This has meant bidders have had to make best estimates for what are around 40% of the overall project cost. That might mean the government pays more than it should or firms underbid and look to revise costs later on.
3)The Design, Build, Operate and Maintain model will likely mean a level of toll so high as to deter some commuters from using it. We still have no idea what the toll will be but if it is anything approaching the one for the Berbice Bridge then it will be a harsh daily tax on commuters and could hold back development of Region 3.
Additionally there is the attempt to waive an Environmental Impact Assessment for the project by the board of the EPA which is a supposedly independent agency but has been utterly co-opted by this administration. The EPA needs to be reminded that the “E” stands for “Environmental” not for “Expediency”. What they may not also appreciate is the waiver has no legitimacy inter-nationally and automatically precludes many Western companies from bidding as they are unable to obtain financing backed by required Environmental, Social and Governance principles.
A well informed contributor to the discussions on this project has been Donald Rodney whose letter of February 13 2022, questioned the requirement to conduct sub-soil and related surveys within the overall design and construction period. He said this should be separated from the 24-month timeframe and also suggested de-linking “completion time from the election cycle….These steps would also provide welcomed respite for resolution of important public environmental concerns and settling of private land acquisition matters.”
It is not clear how much this administration will listen to Mr Rodney’s “constructive criticism” or that of anyone else on any aspect of the project even as they seem intent on using Chinese construction firms. Again it is not necessary to enumerate the history of their performance in this country other than it has been dismal and in the case of Skeldon cost Guyana an industry which supported thousands of families and communities.
Most recently VP Jagdeo, under whom this portfolio also apparently falls, announced that negotiations with the first place winner had been cancelled over financing costs and that the four-man team appointed by the government would now enter talks with the second placed bidder. What they hope to achieve is not clear as all the firms go to the same markets for financing. We also heard an admission from Minister Edghill that the price of the project will go up. That is a moment of welcome honesty as most informed observers put the price tag at over $350M instead of the winning bid of $256M. But if that is the case then why bother having a bidding process in the first place? As Rodney points out in another letter “post-bid negotiations…are prohibited by procurement legislation. In light of this, an arrangement where the cost and financial terms are to be negotiated afterwards with individual bidders, as stated by government, borders on recklessness.” It would appear that this project may well need to be retendered given it seems currently to be at best an ad hoc process and possibly a complex charade.
One of the European companies that initially showed interest but ultimately declined to bid was the Dutch subsidiary of French contractor Eiffage Genie Civil. Eiffage built the highest bridge in the world, the Millau Viaduct in southern France. It is 336 metres in height with a length of 2.5km. Effiage completed it in three years at a cost of US$424M. As well as winning several civil engineering awards it is considered a masterpiece of design by acclaimed English architect Norman Foster whose other works include the new Wembley Stadium and The Apple Park in Cupertino California.
So why on earth are we, an oil producing nation with an estimated US$1.4B in oil revenues for 2022, haggling like some grocery store owner with Chinese contractors over a bridge with an ugly curve at one end? Instead we should be emphasising performance (quality and timely completion) over price in all infrastructure projects and looking around the world for the finest and most reliable construction firms to execute them.
As for the Design, Build, Operate and Maintain model, some may recall that the loudest applause for Barbados PM Mia Mottley at the recent energy conference was when she warned that ‘“It is our duty to…ensure that at no stage, as newly-independent nations of our world that we leave our citizens as tenants in their own land.” What are commuters paying bridge tolls to a foreign owned company or citizens paying tariffs to pay a foreign owned hydropower project if not exactly that?
There is one possible solution for delinking the project from the election cycle: the recent USAID report proposes Guyana looks to craft a new national development strategy that offers a gateway to fuller political involvement. At this moment in time it is unrealistic given the current political dysfunction. However there is nothing to stop the inclusion of the opposition and civil society in major transformational projects via some form of oversight committee or other mechanism. Don’t the citizens that will be affected by a four-lane bridge being rammed through their neighbourhoods deserve to monitor its construction? Don’t the commuters who might have voted for the opposition deserve a representative to watch over the project?
And even if one agrees with the position that “winner takes all” regardless of the slim margin of victory, might it not make smart politics for the PPP/C if only it could overcome its obsession for complete control? Because by including the opposition and civil society in this and the gas to shore project it has the potential to neutralise them as political liabilities. For its part the opposition must now also be realising that constructive engagement is necessary or else it risks irrelevance. Just as in the border issue and the case before the International Court of Justice, so too these projects could be ringfenced as an acknowledgement that they are both too important to the nation to be used for short-term political gains and that their success is in the interest of all.
This might also offer points of co-operation that could then expand into other areas. A bridge too far? Maybe but in the end, mature and inclusive politics is the only viable path for the country.
