The scandal-ridden half bridge cum CIQ (Customs, Immigration and Quarantine) complex project looks set to continue its scandal-making streak.

Works Minister S Samy Vellu announced on April 20 that the project contractor Gerbang Perdana Sdn Bhd (GPSD) had been awarded a RM250 million contract to build the land connection from the causeway to the CIQ complex, adding: "I have met the contractor Wednesday (April 19) and told them to start work as soon as possible". ( Bernama , April 20).

But it was only on April 12 that the prime minister made the stunning announcement that the half bridge project was to be abandoned forthwith and a land connection to the CIQ complex be built instead. It is mind-boggling indeed as to how this multi-million ringgit new contract could be awarded within seven days without seriously compromising the professional ethics of both the government (as employer) and the contractor respectively.

Just look at the great amount of works that both the contractor and the government must complete before the government can talk about awarding the contract:

1. Contractor to complete the design of the land bridge/flyover from the causeway to the CIQ complex.

2. Government to complete deliberating and approving the design.

3. Contractor to complete preparing the bill of quantities that cover not only the newly decided land bridge/flyover, but also demolition of existing structures and modifications at the CIQ complex. This bill of quantities consists of a full list of itemised quantities of works with their respective unit prices and the sum total contract price.

4. Government to complete scrutinising the bill of quantities, negotiating and approving the prices.

Since these stages of works are to be carried out consecutively, it is common sense that the entire process will take weeks, not days to complete.

That the contract was awarded within the unholy haste of seven days could only imply there had been improper collusion between the government and the contractor with the probable scenario of a government approving automatically everything that the contractor proposes including contract prices.

In fact that subconscious attitude of treating the contractor as part of the government seems to prevail all the way to the top. This was demonstrated in the strange phenomenon of a prime minister announcing the compensation package that consists of RM100 million among others, when the professionals in the government had not even scrutinised the contractor's claim of RM99.7 million compensation submitted earlier for scrapping the half bridge.

Dubious reasons

Contrast this lightning speed of award with Samy's claim that it will take between 14 and 16 months for a contractor to be appointed via open tender, when he was justifying in Parliament the government s decision to award the contract to GPSD without a tender ( The Star , April 26).

And so to Samy, it is perfectly alright to take only seven days to award the contract to GPSD, but to award the same to someone else, it will take at least 14 months. What does Samy take his audience for? Idiots?

The work processes prior to award in both instances, whether awarding to GPSD or to someone else, is almost identical, and these are: design, bill of quantities, tender evaluation and award decision. The latter case takes a bit extra time, due to having to advertise for tenders.

However, this can be minimised by resorting to invited tenders. A reasonable tendering period for an urgent project like this is: one week for project brief and invitation, six weeks for tender preparation and submission and two weeks for evaluation and award, totaling nine weeks.

This time frame could possibly be shortened by two weeks in the event of direct negotiation with GPSD. However, for a project of this size, competitive tendering should be mandatory as it is the only means by which the government can be certain of getting the best deal, and the inevitable saving in millions could more than justify the slightly longer time taken to award the contract.

Other reason given by Samy for awarding the contract to GPSD is that the latter has completed 30 percent of the aborted bridge, most of which could be re-used for the present land bridge, thus saving the government considerable costs. This claim of saving is fallacious, as these works to be re-used have been paid for and belong to the government, and whoever undertakes the land bridge construction will bring the same savings to the government. It is therefore dishonest of Samy to suggest otherwise.

Ridiculous compensation

Regarding the compensation claim of RM99.7 million by GPSD, Samy explained that this was for the stoppage of works directed by the government lasting from Feb 5, 2004 to Jan 18, 2006 totaling 712 days. Samy added:

"But in the end, we have to pay compensation for the 712 days, as GPSD s machines, their people, their contractors and engineers were all there but they could not continue with their work as the government had yet to make a decision." ( The Sun , April 25).

Is Samy telling us that GPSD's plant and men had been sitting at the site doing nothing all this time and expect the government to fully pay their wages and machine charges for 712 days?

Couldn't the men and machines be gainfully employed in this long duration of two years while the project was suspended? Of course they could. And in fact that was exactly what happened. In addition, all abortive works have been more than amply paid for by the government.

Samy's suggestion to pay for the 712 days of idle hours for men and machinery originally deployed for the abortive bridge is therefore completely out of order.

What does the compensation figure of RM99.7 million over 712 days mean?

It means a compensation of RM140,000 per day or RM4.3 million per month. Even if the government had ordered GPSD's men and machines to be on site doing nothing for 712 days with promise of full payment, in which event Samy should have been sacked long ago, the compensation due to GPSD could not remotely approach a fraction of RM4.3 million a month. So where did GPSD pluck the figure of RM99.7 million from?

I pointed out in my previous article on April 19, 2006 that GPSD had been accorded a special status with all kinds of preferential treatment, and exposed GPSD's substantial parasitic shareholdings that could be interpreted as proxy for some very important hidden beneficiaries.

I suggested then that the Anti-Corruption Agency stepped in to conduct its investigations.

And now, with the latest award of the RM250 million contract to GPSD in dubious circumstances, it appears even more imperative that a proper ACA investigation be carried out now to return credibility and transparency to the government as so earnestly and repeatedly advocated by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

KIM QUEK is a retired accountant.