“Rehiring of Osmani & Consultants Ltd.
sets the stage for making more and more mistakes in
the preparation of PC-I, find investigators”
Karachi’s premier water supply scheme, K – IV was not taken seriously from very beginning and PC – II of the project seems to be the rough work of a child instead of a professional document of significance appropriate to this very important project involving the water needs of tens of millions of people, found the investigation instituted by the Sindh government.
The findings of the report of which a copy is with Engineering Review says both the Karachi Water & Sewerage Board (KWSB) and the consultants Osmani & Company Ltd. (OCL)are accountable and have shifted responsibility on each other.
The inquiry was done by Aijaz Ahmed Mahesar, Secretary to the government of Sindh.
“The systemic failure of checks and control has been observed during the planning, preparation, and implementation of K-IV. This is mainly because the Consultants (OCL), who initially prepared PC-II/ Feasibility (including design of K-IV) was rehired during implementation as “Design and Supervision Consultants “with the tasks of, inter alia, drawings and designs of K-IV and review the earlier designs prepared by the PC-II Consultants (who were otherwise to be a different Consultant). Re-hiring, the Consultants who prepared PC-II for PC-I design and implementation Consultancy was not only the conflict of interest but this also set a stage for making more and more mistakes in the preparation of PC-I, its implementation and avoiding systemic controls,” the finding unearths. “This needs to be further investigated as to why and under what circumstances the same (OCL) consultant was repeatedly hired ignoring the conflict of interest,” it recommends.
As per feasibility study carried out by the KW&SB in the year 2002 as well as the scope of work, services, and TORS clearly define the responsibility of the Consultants, who on the other hand has shifted the responsibility to others.
The findings further say the contention of the consultants that they were not supposed to prepare the PC-I is neither tenable nor justified and contradictory to Feasibility Study (Stage-2).
In any case, the original PC-I was prepared by them, which was clocked, approved and signed by the officers of Sponsoring Agency {KW&SB} who also ignored to verify that many tasks were found missing in the document.
The investigators found Ex Project Director Mr. Saleem Siddiquinot exempted from the responsibility. “The contention of the Ex Project Director Mr. Saleem Siddiqui that he had no role in the preparation, checking or approval of the PC-I and that modification in PC-I thereafter at a later stage was just formality and these modifications were limited to the extent of clarification as and when asked by the forums like PDWP / CDWP / ECNEC during the proceedings also does not exempt him from the responsibility.”
In its conclusion, the reports say: After perusal of all records and statements made available to the undersigned and keeping in view the findings, it is concluded the K-IV was badly planned since its inception and utter negligence in discharging the duty was also observed at various levels.
As a result, the cost of the program is increased exponentially, and the benefits of the K-IV have not been harvested in time. The responsibility lies on various stakeholders as under:
I. The consultant i.e. Osmani& Company (Pvt) Ltd. who during feasibility failed to deliver the deliverables in time, did not bring foreign technical expert as per the agreement, prepared faulty PC-I and kept major components missing. They also failed to deliver as effective Design and Supervision consultant
II. Officers of KS&WB who prepared PC I, reviewed and verified it but could not fulfill their obligation to point out or incorporate the missing components in K-IV PC-I at various stages spanning over years and years of planning as well as reviewing of the project.
III. The Committee and officers who appointed OCL as Design and Supervision Consultants, who were already feasibility and design Consultants for the same project failed to observe the conflict of interest. This can be viewed as a standalone lapse which paved the way for the subsequent failures.
IV. The Project Directors/ In charges of feasibility and PC-I of K-IV also failed to fulfill their obligation for their failure to force the contract management with the Consultants and get deliverables in time
