Owner Imperfect Knowledge - Part 1

The previous Part introduced the industry market, highlighting ‘imperfect knowledge’ on the part of both owners and contractors, and the dominance by owners. Still at the industry level, this is the first of a two-part examination of the owners’ side (the demand side) and hopefully by the end will point to some action for re-balancing dominance.

A construction owner needs to take the initiative to gain relevant knowledge through appointing a professional who can advise on their (the owner’s) duties, and assist in discharging those duties. Advice and management are usually merged seamlessly. The professional must understand the client brief and design, advise on build-ability, realistic timeframe and cost projection of the project or programme. Complexity is added, as usually the role demands bridging the owner’s commercial or political goals with adherence to technical practice, and this is more a social skill. If the owner omits or mismanages the appointment an important safe-guard for success is lost. If appointed, the professional assumes a fiduciary position visà-vis the owner, who becomes a client. It is incumbent on the professional, as soon as possible, to advise if he or she is in actual fact not competent to give the required service or, if supplementary professionals are needed: this arises from an obligation in ethics, being part of a true professional standing. For private sector clients in Guyana, this role is usually met by outside consultants, who have no say within the client’s organisation.

The knowledgeable client

For public sector owners, the situation is different. The Ministry of Public Infrastructure (MoPI) on behalf of government, is an owner of major public works infrastructure, as inferred from its website currently, where MoPI responsibilities are stated. MoPI is the foremost technical entity for other Ministries and government agencies, whose construction activities come under the purview of MoPI to various degrees, e.g. Ministry of Public Health, CJIA or GPL expansion projects.

Professionals employed by MoPI and the government agencies advise on important technical issues. At the same time, by virtue of their employment, the professionals are civil servants and come under the supervision of the senior administrative staff and political directorate of the day. This poses a clear contradiction as to when the professionals are acting as trusted advisors, or as directed employees. This may apply to important professionals in areas other than construction. Nevertheless, the advice of professionals at MoPI and its coordinated agencies ought to be sought, or given, based on technical knowledge and skills, and indeed some senior professionals have an executive role. On this basis, the public sector owner, MoPI and other Ministries and agencies, is a ‘knowledgeable client’.

Government’s dual role

Quite separately, the government has a role of regulation in the society. Regulations which impact construction most directly are building control, and town and country planning. The former controls the safety of buildings; the latter controls where buildings should be placed. Such regulations are fragmented and come under overlapping institutions; they can be confusing, as some regulations are essential requirements, breach of which are criminal offences, or should be, and others are merely advisory, and often there is no clear demarcation to the public. In the view of this author, ‘essential requirements’ should arise from the contemporary challenges faced by the society in relation to infrastructure, as re-established from time to time. For example, since presently most construction is on the flood-prone coastland in Guyana and septic tanks are in common use, mandatory requirements should include acceptable health protection in regard to flooding; similarly protection from domestic fires, in view of the recent experience of residents in Guyana.

However, to get back on track: regulations are raised here in the context of ‘imperfect knowledge’ as they apply, irrespective of agreements between owners and contractors, and everyone is presumed to be aware of the law. In Guyana, regulations and enforcement of the same is nascent, despite planning and building control enactments from 1950 and 1970 (or perhaps because they are dated). Such regulations now come under the responsibility of primarily the local authorities, and Central Housing and Planning Authority (CHPA), which comes under the Ministry of Communities. Again, there arises the conflict in whether civil servants are acting as advisors or employees within CHPA as a public construction owner, perhaps now amplified, since said owner here has the role of regulator, with control over private owners as well. This is relevant not only to the feature of ‘knowledge’ but also to ‘dominance’ by the public sector owner in this case. The dual role of government will be returned to below.

The public owner - Barriers to knowledge

In line with the role of public owner, MoPI’s website states that it is the country’s epicentre of engineering and technical excellence. There is no indication of how such excellence is achieved, e.g. the entry-level qualification and experience of staff, or whether there is post-entry continuous professional development. However, dramatically different views have been expressed in letters to, and interviews by, the media in recent years by a chartered architect and two engineers who, by their individual self-descriptions, have several decades of experience in Guyana’s construction industry or are veteran practitioners. These practitioners will here be taken as expert witnesses, and their letters and interviews as expert reports.

The following can be distilled as information from the expert reports over the period March 2012 to November 2017:

With direct relevance to quality of skills, one practitioner pointed out by letter that the Government is still to ensure that its engineers and architects (and contractors) are competent.

Another practitioner, from an interview report, reflected the same view, referring to many recent structural failures in both public engineering and private building which required “hundreds of millions of dollars” of corrective work, and adamant that an engineer who failed in his or her duty should be held accountable.

Of concern is that two practitioners stated that Ministry engineers and hired consultants may not know enough to recognise when geotechnical, or specialist other input, is required. Another letter stated, “It is not unusual to see engineers being engaged for buildings while claiming to have a token architectural skill on their team”. Both practitioners referred to a lack of local professional standards in engineering or code of conduct for architects.

On the basis of the foregoing, rather than MPI being an epicentre of excellence, there is indifference to the level of competence of professionals and to a relevant mix of team specialist skills within the Ministry. This a barrier to adequate client knowledge in the public sector. There is also government’s apparent indifference to the absence of codes of professional practice. The latter would also affect the private construction owner, since it translates into little assurance that a particular professional adheres to a standard, and signals difficulty in enforceability of professional performance.

A Red Flag

In this regard, the 2017 collapse of the foundations of the Indian Arrival Monument at Palmyra, widely covered by media, is a red flag. The project spans two different political- party administrations in government, each of which blames the other for what is obviously a technical matter. What is noticeable is that neither administration can point clearly to technical advice on which it relied in advancing the Monument project during its tenure: government technical staff was the same throughout, as far as known publicly. As much as a pedestrian on the pavement hit in the back by a motor car deserves an explanation, so too the nation deserves an explanation of the foundation collapse. However, there has been silence. Both administrations, without a public inquiry or report, claim dutifully to have taken the correct steps. This leaves open the question of if technical knowledge was given or received, before the debacle. In general terms it also raises a governance red flag about the advisor/employee conflict narrated above, and about the rightful level of decision-making.