The situation at the Paruima airport is a disgrace. After an expenditure of nearly $400 million, the runway failed when the first plane landed. This could have been a disaster with the loss of several lives, but thankfully, by God’s grace, no one died.
However, the absence of injury or death does not mean that, as a nation, we should take this matter any less seriously. The design and construction process for civil projects should incorporate checks and balances, quality assurance, and quality control. At each stage of the design process, design deliverables such as geotechnical reports, structural calculations, construction drawings, and specifications need to be independently reviewed and approved. This review is critical to the safety of Guyanese using newly constructed roads, bridges, and airports.
Construction should be closely supervised by competent professionals. No contractor should be allowed to perform work unsupervised. This supervision should ensure reinforcement bars are clean and placed as required by the drawings, that the concrete mix design is as per contract, and the concrete is placed and compacted as required. This process should also include routine compressive tests performed on concrete placed into the works, and if these tests fail, the contractor should be required, as per contract, to remove and replace the substandard concrete.
If this process had been followed, there is no way the Paruima runway could have failed. There will be a rush to blame the contractor, apply financial punishment, and sweep the issue under the carpet. However, what happened at the Paruima airport is symptomatic of a problem that pervades the procurement process under the PPP. For this reason, the PNCR demands a full and transparent investigation into the Paruima airport fiasco. The nation needs to know:
1. Who designed the airstrip?
2. Were the required engineering processes complied with?
3. Who reviewed and approved the designs, and what did the review reveal?
4. Who supervised the contractor, if anyone, while the work was being performed?
5. Were routine compressive tests done on the concrete used in the works?
6. If tests were done, did any of the samples fail, and if so, what was done?
7. If no tests were done, why not?
8. Were there any non-engineering/political interventions or influences during the entire project?
Most critically, the PNCR is also demanding that urgent non-destructive in-situ tests be performed on the runway to establish the extent of the deficiencies.
