The road that never was
| Monday June 4, 2012 00:00
It was January last year when heavy machinery rolled onto site to expand the Gaborone-Boatle Road to widen the shoulders and redo the surface. Many breathed a sigh of relief that Botswana’s most neglected road that has claimed many lives was finally being attended to.
News soon broke that the Boatle-Ramotswa section would also be redone, prompting ululations among Balete. With just a thin patch between Boatle and the principal town of Balete, the road had long surpassed its lifespan and taken many lives.
Except for the sudden dip off the shoulders and lack of rest bays, the Boatle-Gaborone Road is now complete and can be rated among the safest in the country. For Boatle-Ramotswa 10km stretch, the contractor started work in August last year when streetlights were removed and a gravel detour was prepared alongside a section of the road from the level crossing. Motorists still negotiate their arduous passage on poorly maintained gravel road because there is absolutely no progress on the project.
Below are the causes of the delay
The parties are yet to sign a contract for the P25.4 million project and the contractor is blaming the Department of Roads for the delay. A letter of offer was submitted to the contractor on May 25, 2011 stating that the contract sum shall be P25,410,853.42 and that the project is to be completed in 10 months.
“There will be a letter of acceptance, signed and acknowledged; the form of contract agreement, which will be given to you in due course; the tender document for this contract; clarification and all correspondences regarding the tender,” the letter says.
“This letter of acceptance, together with your acknowledgement thereof, shall constitute a binding contract between yourself and the government until Agreement is signed between the parties.”
The letter also says Execution of Works for the contract shall commence within 14 days after issuance of the Engineer’s order of commencement.
However, the contractor holds that without a contract, the acknowledgement letter takes precedence. On the other hand, the client will not comply with what is prescribed in the letter of acknowledgement. The contractor also accuses the client (Department of Roads) of introducing certain pages in the contract agreement, which were never discussed at time of tender. Among the documents, the contractor claims, is a letter that gives the government powers to force contractors to hand over their plant without giving it back to them.
“No contractor will bring equipment onto a construction site where he automatically will hand over ownership thereof to the employer,” the contractor protested in writing. “Nor will any rental company be found which can agree to such a condition. There should be various items in the bills of quantities compensating the contractor for handing over ownership.
“There is no agreement that the employer will return the equipment after its use and a completely untenable situation will arise when the contractor performs his obligations in terms of the construction part of the contract.”
After explaining his difficulties, and impossible demands by the employer, the contractor concludes in a letter dated October 31, 2011: “We believe that the contract should be re-drafted or alternatively that an addendum should be signed by both parties to rectify the situation. We understand that the employer has not yet signed the contract.”
Responding to our enquiries, the department’s public relations Officer, Doreen Moapare, said: “We can confirm that the client (Department of Roads) and the contractor (Estate Construction) have a binding contract. Any further details to the contract are considered contractually confidential.”
Accessibility to site
The contractor also complains that tuckshops in front of Bamalete Lutheran Hospital and a Bureau de Change at Ramotswa border gate present a problem to the project and that the Department of Roads should dealt with the matter. “We have communicated to the roads dept about this but to-date there is no response whatsoever,” the director of Estae Construction, Tshepo Sebina, said in an interview. “With the assistance of the South East District Council, the vendors have been consulted and a piece of land for the relocation of their tuckshops identified and prepared,” said Moapare.
Maintenance of bypass
As client and contractor haggle, the detour between the railway line near Ramotswa Station and Magope Hill is a nightmare for motorists, commuters, cyclists and pedestrians travelling between Ramotswa and subsistence farmlands because of poor maintenance. Since it opened in September last year, it is an environmental hazard that becomes marshland when it rains and a continuous dust storm when dry. Early morning commuters to Gaborone descending from Magope Hill are greeted by what looks like khakhi-brown fog in an atmosphere saturated with dust.
This detour too became a source of dispute over who should maintain it. The contractor pulled out while roads said it would shoulder the responsibility.By the last festive season, motorists attracted heavy fines from insensitive traffic cops from Ramotswa Police Station for driving on the old road whose surface was tantalising after an initial layer of compacted earth.
Designs
Mmegi is in possession of a letter from the contractor to the client dated August 11, 2011 in which he complains about bad designs. “We write this letter to inform you that there are differences in designed finished road levels and the existing road levels,” Sebina wrote.
“From chainage 0+000 to 5+000, the designed road levels are lower than the existing by (an) average of 650mm. The designed road is also deviating from the existing one from Chainage 8+300 to 8+500. On the other sections, the differences are quite minimal.”
On August 19, 2011, the contractor requested to start work while the vertical and horizontal alignment in sections requiring reconstruction were being resolved. He complains that the consultant did a shoddy job or never bothered to do new designs.
On March 16, 2012, the contractor wrote to follow up on his August 19 query for vertical and horizontal alignment data. In the same letter, the contractor requested to be furnished with the documents by March 19, 2012. “Also note that if we are to design and construct, as we did on the reconstruction section on chainage 4+100 to 5+200, it will be at a cost that you will be notified (of) in due course,” the contractor warned. “It is now seven months from the date of our first letter and this matter is still unresolved despite our efforts to highlight it in all progress meetings and technical meetings.”
Enter another player: In a letter dated March 20, 2012, the consultant, Group Consult Global, responded to the contractor’s claims of poor designs. “The insinuation in your letter that setting out data has delayed the works has no basis whatsoever,” the consultant argues. “The major delay recorded to date is that occasioned by your suspension of the works due to alleged lack of gravel. Also your allegation that the contractor has designed some section of the road is unfounded and hereby denied.”
The consultant’s letter also said the principle of placing works was agreed upon at the beginning and was simple and self-explanatory. “To recap, it was agreed that the works in plan shall be set out to follow the position of the existing road. For the section to be reconstructed, it was agreed the final level shall be uniform and constant above the existing vertical profile.
“The sudden impossibility of carrying out works is not apparent as the contractor has implemented this principle successfully from chainage 0+540 to Bamalete Hospital. To resolve this apparent impossibility, the RE (Resident Engineer) will guide the setting out of works on the ground and the contractor is to provide all the necessary resources in accordance with the contract.”
Said Roads PRO Moapare in response to our enquiries: “Design issues are considered technical matters which are often resolved amicably between the Client and the contractor in accordance with the contract. We are not aware of any outstanding design issues on this project”.
Dispute adjudication board
The appointment of a Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) has also stalled for months as evidenced by correspondence between the contractor and the client in which the former blames on the latter. The contractor believes that all the disputes could have been resolved if there was a DAB if the Roads was committed to having one. This is further proved by correspondence between the parties that began last year when the contractor suggested three names on the October 17. However, to-date Roads has not responded.
The mandate of such a body would be to preside over any differences that may arise between the parties and to make regular site visits. “The dispute resolution mechanism for this contract is in place in accordance with the contract,” Roads responded to us, nonetheless.
Standing time
The contractor has resolved to make a claim for his machinery standing idle. In a letter dated February 2, 2012, the Engineering Consultant noted an official acknowledgement of a delay in the project “because of shortage of gravel for the Boatle road”.
The EC letter continued: “The Landboard and local chiefs blame Roads Department about non-conformance with the rules. Although you have attempted to sort out the matter, it now appears that the issues will not be resolved until Director of Roads personally has addressed the Ramotswa Kgotla. Your Mr Autlwetse is aware of this matter. As most of our plant is now standing since November 2011 a claim for the cost thereof is inevitable.”
The contractor says the claim is in the region of P4.5 million and not P1.5 that million Roads would have paid had it agreed to allow the contractor to purchase and haul gravel from Kgale Quarries. Mmegi is in possession of a letter dated March 28, 2012 in which the contractor notes issues that need urgent resolution by the Director of Roads.
Among them are Variation No 1, Extension of Time, Appointment of a DAB, Vesting contractor’s machines to become property of client, inadequate/incorrect project information including designs. “These issues need to be resolved urgently since they will further delay the project even after the issuance of the mining licence,” the letter said.
Inspite of all the controversy surrounding the Boatle-Ramotswa Road project, Roads insists that there are no problems and the road will soon be completed. The contractor reported some progress this week and referred to some activity at Ramotswa border gate.
Timeline of the hitch (Gravel)
14 August 2011: Application for a burrow pit submitted to Malete Land Board.
24 August 2011: Letter of Acknowledgment written to contractor Estate Construction by Malete Land Board advising that the matter is receiving attention and that the Contractor will be informed of the date of consideration of application.
25 August 2011: Application for Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment submitted to Department of Environmental Affairs.
16 September 2011: Response from Department of Environmental Affairs received, stating that the application could not be processed without proof of provisional allocation by land board, thus copy of provisional surface rights and sketch plan.
1 November 2011: Landboard, chiefs, farmers and contractor’s representatives met at proposed burrow pit at Seribe for identification of area.
2 November 2011: Letter written by landboard to Estate Construction deferring consideration of the application pending (i) Department of Roads should properly consultations with South East District, including bogosi, about project because they were not fully briefed at first.
(ii) Input of Seribe Farmers Committee.
11 January 2012: Meeting held between magosi, Roads, Group Consult, landboard and District Commissioner.
26 January 2012: Kgotla meeting held and consultations done with all district structures.
13 February 2012: Letter written by Estate Construction to landboard reminding that since the consultations were done, the surface rights should be issued. Verbal reply that magosi should write a letter confirming that consultations were done.
15 February 2012: Letter from magosi to landboard confirming that consultations were done and therefore the landboard should look into Estate Construction application for surface rights. The issue of burrow pits was first raised in a letter dated November 4, 2011 from the contractor to Roads. “Our application for burrow pit was rejected due to the fact that the Roads Department did not properly consult the District, including Bogosi, about the project,” the letter noted.
“As per our discussion in our last progress meeting, this matter should be treated urgently. This issue is seriously affecting our production. There was no response from Roads until we wrote yet another letter.” The contractor says they offered Roads other options, including Ramaphate burrow pit, Kgale Quarries and Brink’s burrow pit in Tlokweng from which they suggested they could get the required material at extra cost. “We continued to haul gravel from Ramaphate (near Thamaga) but the material got finished and the only option was to go to Kopong,” Sebina told Mmegi this week. However, they could not go to Kopong because Roads was not committing to settle the bill.
Roads Department responded: “There were no significant delays in consultations relating to Boatle burrow pit. Originally existing burrow pits were to be used. However, they were not available for use at the start of the project. Hence when the project commenced, the contractor identified a new burrow pit for which consultation was required and to which we responded to immediately.”
Roads added that much questionnaire pried on contractual confidentiality “and therefore we cannot divulge details on certain aspects”.