Download - The Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka

ting
the
ADB
the
from
EA
eers
plete
lays
ther
have
soft
ents
en a
on
Executing Agency (EA). It took 332 days from
because the Expression of an of intervention Interests (EOIs) by a for competing the EA
bidder, and the selected questioning firm to the sign eligibility the contract. of the
competitor. After clarification, the ADB
approved It is generally the accepted ranking by as the proposed design engineers by the
Executing interviewed Agency that, (EA). Inadequate It took and 332 days incomplete from
because of an intervention by a competing
the investigations Expression have of Interests caused (EOIs) significant for the delays EA
bidder, questioning the eligibility of the
and during the the selected implementation firm to sign stage. the contract. On the other
competitor. After clarification, the ADB
hand, incomplete site investigations have
approved the ranking as proposed by the
It resulted is generally in time accepted consuming by the activities design engineers like soft
Executing Agency (EA). It took 332 days from
interviewed soil treatment that, later at Inadequate the execution and stage. incomplete
the Expression of Interests (EOIs) for the EA
investigations have caused significant delays
and the selected firm to sign the contract.
during At this the stage, implementation preparation of stage. tender On documents the other
hand, according incomplete to the available site investigations standards has been have a
It is generally accepted by the design engineers
resulted tedious in task. time Quantitative consuming activities information like soft on
interviewed that, Inadequate and incomplete
soil delays treatment were available later at the for execution only seven stage. projects
investigations have caused significant delays
(P5 – P6, P8 - P12) out of the 24 projects
during the implementation stage. On the other
At examined. this stage, Overall, preparation the delay of tender caused documents in this
hand, incomplete site investigations have
according stage was to the accounted available from standards the has examined been a
resulted in time consuming activities like soft
tedious projects (see task. Fig.1) Quantitative as 23% on information average. The on
soil treatment later at the execution stage.
delays research were revealed available that, for only Incomplete seven projects and
(P5 improperly – P6, P8 harmonized - P12) out tender of the documents 24 projects and
At this stage, preparation of tender documents
examined. ambiguous specifications Overall, the result delay in caused repetition in this of
according to the available standards has been a
stage work was thus, accounted causing further from the delay examined in the
tedious task. Quantitative information on
projects process. The (see bids Fig.1) submitted as 23% by on the average. contractors The
delays were available for only seven projects
research were also revealed not substantially that, responsive. Incomplete Even and
(P5 – P6, P8 - P12) out of the 24 projects
improperly the qualified harmonized bidders tender were documents called and for
examined. Overall, the delay caused in this
ambiguous clarification specifications on their shortcomings result in on repetition the contract of
stage was accounted from the examined
work documents thus, submitted causing and further this has delay been observed in the
projects (see Fig.1) as 23% on average. The
process. to be one The of bids the submitted most significant by the contractors causes of
research revealed that, Incomplete and
were delay also in this not stage. substantially In one of responsive. the special Even cases
improperly harmonized tender documents and
the examined, qualified the condition bidders made were in called the tender for
ambiguous specifications result in repetition of
clarification document such on their as shortcomings “the contractors on the contract should
work thus, causing further delay in the
documents possess ownership submitted and of 70% this has of been the plant observed and
process. The bids submitted by the contractors
to equipment” be one of created the most controversial significant issues causes and of
were also not substantially responsive. Even
delay resulted in this in retendering stage. In one causing of the special more cases than
the qualified bidders were called for
examined, double the the period condition generally made in followed the tender for
clarification on their shortcomings on the contract
document procurement. such In as Tsunami “the contractors Affected should Areas
documents submitted and this has been observed
possess Rebuilding ownership Projects (TAARP) of 70% of the the procurement plant and
to be one of the most significant causes of
equipment” process was delayed created by controversial more than 100% issues of and the
delay in this stage. In one of the special cases
resulted in retendering causing more than
examined, the condition made in the tender
double 3.2.3 Project the implementation period generally stage followed for
document such as “the contractors should
procurement. In Tsunami Affected Areas
possess ownership of 70% of the plant and
Rebuilding The actual Projects construction (TAARP) of the the road procurement is carried
equipment” created controversial issues and
process out at was this delayed stage which by more is than susceptible 100% of the to
resulted in retendering causing more than
.
double the period generally followed for
3.2.3 Project implementation stage
procurement. In Tsunami Affected Areas
The
Rebuilding
actual construction
Projects (TAARP)
of the
the
road
procurement
is carried
out
process
at this
was delayed
stage which
by more
is
than
susceptible
100% of the
to
.
planned duration due to improperly harmonized
3.2.3 tender Project documents. implementation stage
The Overall, actual 68% construction of the delays of were the road caused is carried due to
out the shortcomings at this stage in which the contract is susceptible documents to
. and 32% of delays were due to the approvals
of authorities such as Cabinet Appointed
Procurement Committee (CAPC) and donor
(see Fig. 2).
ENGINEER 70
Executing the shortcomings Agency (EA). in the It contract took 332 documents days from
planned the and Expression 32% duration of delays of due Interests were to improperly due (EOIs) to the for harmonized approvals the EA
tender and of authorities the documents. selected such firm to as sign Cabinet the contract. Appointed
Procurement Committee (CAPC) and donor
Overall, It (see is generally Fig. 68% 2). of accepted the delays by the were design caused engineers due to
the interviewed shortcomings that, in Inadequate the contract and documents incomplete
and
planned duration due to improperly harmonized
investigations 32% of delays have were caused due significant to the approvals delays
tender documents.
of during authorities the implementation such as Cabinet stage. On Appointed the other
Procurement hand,
Overall,
incomplete Committee
68% of the
site
delays
investigations (CAPC) and donor
were caused due
have
to
(see resulted Fig. 2).
the shortcomings
in time consuming
in the contract
activities
documents
like soft
soil
and
treatment
32% of delays
later at
were
the execution
due to the
stage.
approvals
of authorities such as Cabinet Appointed
At
Procurement
this stage, preparation
Committee
of
(CAPC)
tender documents
and donor
according
(see Fig. 2).
to the available standards has been a
tedious task. Quantitative information on
delays were available for only seven projects
(P5 – P6, P8 - P12) out of the 24 projects
examined. Figure 1 - Design Overall, and the tendering delay caused stage in delay this
stage as a percentage was accounted of original from duration the examined
projects (see Fig.1) as 23% on average. The
research The overall revealed results indicate that, that, Incomplete the root cause and
improperly for the above harmonized being tender the incomplete documents and
Figure ambiguous improperly 1 - Design specifications harmonized and tendering result tender in repetition stage documents, delay of
as work and a percentage inadequate thus, causing of capacity original further duration of contractors delay in the in
process. preparing The bids bids to the submitted required by standards. the contractors
The were overall also not results substantially indicate that, responsive. the root cause Even
for the the qualified above bidders being the were incomplete called and for
Figure 1 - Design and tendering stage delay
improperly clarification on harmonized their shortcomings tender on documents, the contract
as a percentage of original duration
and documents inadequate submitted capacity and this of has contractors been observed in
preparing to be one bids of the to the most required significant standards. causes of
delay The overall in this results stage. In indicate one of that, the the special root cases cause
examined, for the above the condition being the made incomplete in the tender and
document improperly such harmonized as “the contractors tender documents, should
possess and inadequate ownership capacity of 70% of of the contractors plant and in
equipment” preparing bids created to the controversial required standards. issues and
resulted in retendering causing more than
double Figure 2 the - Average period generally delay percentage followed for
procurement. causes of delays In Tsunami – Design Affected and tendering Areas
Rebuilding stage Projects (TAARP) the procurement
process was delayed by more than 100% of the
significant delays (see Fig. 3 & Fig. 4). The
Figure 3.2.3 overall Project delay 2 - implementation Average in this phase delay was stage percentage 69% on average for
causes among the of projects delays examined. – Design and tendering
stage The actual construction of the road is carried
out at this stage which is susceptible to
significant .
delays (see Fig. 3 & Fig. 4). The
overall Figure delay 2 - in Average this phase delay was 69% percentage on average for
among causes the of projects delays examined. – Design and tendering
stage
significant delays (see Fig. 3 & Fig. 4). The
overall delay in this phase was 69% on average
among the projects examined.
the shortcom
and 32% of
of authoriti
Procuremen
(see Fig. 2).
Figure 1 - D
as a percent
The overall
for the ab
improperly
and inadeq
preparing bi
Figure 2 -
causes of d
stage
significant d
overall delay
among the p