close
Tuesday March 19, 2024

Wapda clarification on Mohmand Dam bids’ evaluation

January 09, 2019

Reporter stands by his story

By Our correspondent

ISLAMABAD: Wapda spokesperson has termed the news item titled “Mohmand Dam: Bids’ evaluation found highly questionable”, published in The News on January 8, 2019, as baseless and contrary to the fact.

Referring to the news item, the spokesperson clarified that consultancy contract awarded to SMEC, NESPAK and ACE for detailed engineering design is entirely based on Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) provisions and Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) rules, adding that the Implementation of contract is strictly governed by its clauses as stipulated in the document.

The spokesperson has further clarified that Clause No. 2.5 of the contract entitles both parties to modify the scope of work and services subject to mutual agreement. While, Clause 2.6 of the contract even allows “Extension of time for completion” in case scope of services or duration of the services is increased”.

It is further stated that World Bank as a donor in fact encourages bid evaluation by consultants who have carried out detailed engineering design as implemented by World Bank in case of Dasu Project.

SMEC International was neither debarred nor blacklisted at the time of award of contract and was debarred by the World Bank for projects in specific countries for one year. SMEC was also given project by NHA being no restriction on the company in Pakistan.

The spokesperson said that the increase in consultancy price form initial PC-II of 2012 to 2017 is only comprising new imposition of sales tax by the provinces and escalation both in accordance with clause of the contract.

Khalid Mustafa adds: Wapda’s clarification unfortunately carries no weight as PPRA Rules 2004 deal with general principles and PPRA Rules 2010 relate to regulate the consultancy sector which clearly says if there is a natural continuity in scope of services, then contract can be extended to the same consultant, but in case there is a change is the scope of work, then contract cannot be extended rather a separate contract with companies should be arranged through bidding process under laid down procedure. In the original contract for Detailed Engineering Design of Mohmand Dam, there is no mention at all that consultant headed by SMEC International will also evaluate the contractors’ bids for Mohmand Dam.

Factually it was Wapda which at one time wanted to give advertisement seeking the bids of companies for contractors’ bids evolution, but later on authorities changed their mind and extended the contract to SMEC lead Consultant with the task to upgrade the design till the finalization of the revised PC-1, but cleverly the same consultant was also tasked to do bids’ evaluation which is clearly a diversion from the continuity in scope of work and PPRA rule 2010 clearly say if there is a change in scope of work, then separate contract should be arranged through transparent bidding process and the wining party can be given the job to do bids evaluation. So in the eyes of PPRA rules the contractors bids’ evaluation stand annulled and the whole process should re-initiated

Coming to the Wapda’s assertion using the unexplained argument in the clarification that World Bank as a donor in fact encourages bid evaluation by consultants who have carried out detailed engineering design as implemented by World Bank in case of Dasu Project, the simple answer is that if the bids evaluation by the consultants hired for detailed engineering design of Dasu dam is included in the scope of work, then the same consultant can evaluate the contractors’ bids but when it comes to Mohmand dam, in the original scope of work for detailed engineering design, there is no mention that the same consultant will also do the evaluation of contractors bids. So Wapda’s assertion in Mohmand case that bids evaluation is as per PPRA rules tantamount to violating law of the land and nothing else.

About the Wapda’s stance in its clarification that SMEC International was neither debarred nor blacklisted at the time of award of contract and was debarred by the World Bank for projects in specific countries for one year. SMEC was also given project by NHA being no restriction on the company in Pakistan.

This is true that SMEC International was given the award of contract for detailed engineering design (DED) of Mohmand Dam on March 13, 2014. At that time, there was no bar on SMEC international as it was blacklisted on September 27, 2017 up to September 26, 2018. However, Wapda extended the same contract to consultant of DED in June-July 2018 and at that time debar period was underway as World Bank had debarred SMEC international till September 26, 2018. In the story, the correspondent has quoted the version of top official of SMEC International in Pakistan in which he admitted the fact that in the original tender for detailed engineering design, contractors’ bids evaluation was not included in the original scope of work of detailed engineering design project. Engineer Jamil also said in the story that in June-July 2018, the extension in the contract was given by Wapda to SMEC International. This was the time when debar by World Bank was enforced.

Wapda spokesperson says that the increase in consultancy price form initial PC-II of 2012 to 2017 is only comprising new imposition of sales tax by the provinces and escalation both in accordance with clause of the contract.

New imposition of sales tax by the provinces may be one of the causes for increase in the DEB project cost, but the answer lies in the minutes of the Central Development Working Party (CDWP) meeting that held on Feb 7, 2017. The minutes of the said meeting clearly say that the SMEC International came up with flawed detailed engineering design as it had included the faulty calculations of Probable Maximum Flood (PMF).

This is how the SMEC international inflicted the loss of Rs 159.81 million on national exchequer. Joint Secretary Water (Ministry of water and Power), according to the minutes of the CDWP meeting, had asked for the penalty to the consultants saying the cost in Detailed Engineering Design project has increased on account of flawed calculations of Probable Maximum Flood. The increase in the cost should be borne by consultants headed by SMEC International and to this effect Joint Secretary asked for zero tolerance to the consultants. DG M&E of planning commission in his remarks in that particular CDWP meeting said that consultants are being rewarded despite the grave miscalculation of Probable Maximum Flood.

So all the documentary evidences The News has factually negate the Wapda clarification and finds that it carries no weight.