Some persons mistakenly believe that diplomats must actually misstate the facts on questions posed in order to be “diplomatic”. Very recently, the Chinese Ambassador to Guyana, Cui Jianchun, was asked about the proposed “New Demerara Harbour Bridge (NDHB), construction of which — we have been assured by the PNC-led coalition Government — will begin sometime during this year.
The ambassador said, “I am really concerned about [new] Demerara Bridge…I have talked to the Minister of Public Infrastructure but I cannot tell you the details; but I said, ‘If we are still building a floating bridge, this is not 21st century’.”
The Chinese Ambassador is only the latest in a long string of individuals and institutions to have criticized the Government’s plans to build the bridge, which had been proposed by the previous PPP administration.
The first sign that something was amiss was when the contract to design the NDHB was “sole-sourced,” rather than “competitively bid for,” to the company LIEVENSE CSO for US$250,000. Competitive bidding is used, as we pointed out at the time, “to winnow out bidders that may not be in a position to be serious contenders to deliver the goods or services sought. Screening of potential contractors, suppliers, or vendors would be scrutinised in general on the basis of factors such as experience, financial ability, managerial ability, reputation, work history, etc. to develop a list of qualified bidders who would receive the invitation-to-bid (ITB) documents.”
The Ministry of Public Infrastructure (MPI) attempted to deflect criticisms by claiming the design was funded by the IDB, but was quickly forced to retract its claim. It then weakly claimed it had confused the NDHB with one across the Demerara at Wismar.
The next alarm bell on the Government’s plans was to announce it would accept only a restricted number of bids for “prequalification,” from which it would arbitrarily select three finalists. This was akin to turning on its head the prequalification process – which always sets parameters which applying companies have to satisfy. The Government, through the MPI, incredulously claimed that this approach would offer a higher ratio of successful bidders: the culmination of this logic would suggest “sole-sourcing”.
The Minister admitted the process might be “unfair”, and insistence that “only the absolutely best company” rang hollow in the face of a lack of objectively stated criteria.
But more reflective of the point made by the Chinese Ambassador was the position of the various Chambers of Commerce on both sides of the Demerara River, as to the efficacy of the sole-sourced design to the needs of the communities, not only in the future but in the present. The most objectionable feature of the design was its refusal to deal with the most pressing demand of commuters and transportation entities, which was identified over the last decade as ownership of cars skyrocketed and businesses increased: an end to the bridge “closings” that halted traffic and caused massive delays on both sides of the river.
The new design was “fixed,” as had been contemplated; but running “low”, which demanded a span that had to be lifted to allow the passage of ships upriver, rather than being retracted as is now the case. If the structure was “high”, the ships could pass unimpeded below at all times.
No one could believe the MPI’s retort that, because the bridge was “fixed” rather than “floating”, vehicles could be parked on the structure rather than on the roadways. The MPI obviously doesn’t appreciate the maxim in business, well appreciated by the Chinese Ambassador, that “time is money”, and as such, the structure did not cater for the future and had to be classified as “backward”.
As we said then, the Government appears to be using the NDHB as what the Americans call a “pork barrel” project to garner votes for the 2020 elections with the claim of “infrastructural development”, but, more to the point, to pay off campaign contributors who would benefit from the construction and land acquisition.
