Ravi Riverfront #1: A curious case of Imran Amin and Meinhardt
Ravi Riverfront #1: A curious case of Imran Amin and Meinhardt
The PM is again being taken for a ride by his advisors who most likely misguided him on the LHC judgment
If you are reading it over email, due to the length of the post, it may be clipped at the end. I recommend you click on the title above to read it on the web.
There is much to discuss on the Ravi Riverfront (RR) project. The Lahore High Court (LHC) decision is 219 pages long.
LHC scraps celebrated Ravi riverfront project
The Lahore High Court on Tuesday scrapped the much-celebrated Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project of the government by declaring several provisions of the Ravi Urban Development Authority (Ruda) Act 2020 unconstitutional.
However, I will just focus on the case of Imran Amin, the current CEO of Ravi Urban Development Authority (RUDA), and his previous employer Meinhardt in connection with RR.
Imran Amin at Meinhardt - 2012 to 2020
As per his LinkedIn, from 2012 to 2020, Imran Amin was the Director of Operations Pakistan of Meinhardt Group.
Ravi Riverfront Feasibility by Meinhardt - 2014
In 2014, the period when Imran Amin was Director of Operations, Meinhardt carried out the feasibility of Ravi Riverfront project. As per Meinhardt’s website, the scope of services included Urban Planning and Civil and Structural, which, if not a blatant lie, at the very least, is a gross exaggeration as we will find out later in this post. The contract was for Rs.330 Million.
Blacklisting by LDA - 2015
The work or feasibility of River Riverfront project completed by Meinhardt for LDA was so shoddy that LDA blacklisted Meinhardt citing the deficiencies as per LHC judgment sheet. Reading the LDA memo, LHC summarizes LDA’s opinion of Meinhardt’s work as trash. From the court judgment:
Each aspect of the studies prepared by Meinhardt was trashed and grave and serious deficiencies were pointed out by LDA which rubbishes the integrity of the report prepared by Meinhardt and on the basis of which LDA was constrained to not only reject those reports but also to blacklist Meinhardt.
It is a bit long, but the LDA memo makes for interesting reading. I am reproducing it in full from the LHC judgment. For clarity, the paragraphs with a single red line on the left are the court statements, and the paragraphs with two lines on the left are excerpts from the LDA letter.
In this regard, a letter was written on 22.7.2015 by D.G LDA to the Chairman Planning & Development Board and the following extracts are relevant for our purposes
M/s Meinhardt Singapore (Pte) Ltd was engaged by Lahore Development Authority on March 3, 2014 for the preparation of Prefeasibility Strategic Development Plan & Feasibility Studies, and Detailed Designing and Procurement Documents of the Ravi Riverfront Urban Development project at a contract amount of Rs.329,934,407 under the scheme titled ―Preparatory Work for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project (PC-II)‖
Due to extremely poor performance by M/s Meinhardt Singapore (Pte) Ltd, including inordinate delays and misrepresentation of profession staff availability, this office feels its professional responsibility to bring on record the consultant‘s conduct and recommend initiation of blacklisting proceedings against the company and its subsidiaries.‖ ―
From the onset, the consultant demonstrated inadequate capacity to execute a contract of this size by using its local subsidiary office M/s. Meinhardt Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd as principal office instead of the main office in Singapore as committed in the bid. As a result, even the signing of the contract was delayed by more than one month while the local office attempted to augment its capacity to handle this large project. Furthermore, the consultant took a plea of substitution for several key positions, as the staff that had been proposed in the technical proposal was not available.
Despite repeated communication to the Singapore office, the consultant was unable to deploy to full capacity and persisting issues led to time overruns, first with a delay of five weeks in closure of Phase-I and then a substantial delay of 256 days in completion of Phase-II. Due to delay beyond total project duration, Phase-III was not commenced.
Of graver concern however has been misrepresentation of professional staff availability by the consultant. The team deployed by M/s. Meinhardt Singapore (Pte) Ltd. was found to be of substantially lower quality that the one it was obligated to provide under contract. Key individuals named in the contract were not engaged, and a constant change in staff deployment was observed throughout the project. In response to the repeated highlighting of this issue, the consultant claimed that a number of staff was working directly from the Singapore office. However, contribution of such staff has not been visible in the deliverables nor in the day-to-day office working, nor have any output reports been provided for such Singapore-based foreign staff even upon request. Furthermore, for the greater part of Phase-II, the team visibly operated in the absence of the designated team lead, who was later found to have left the project without official intimation or replacement by the consultant, and with limited number of professional staff
The letter then went on to highlight the basic deficiencies which had infected the work undertaken by Meinhardt and which compelled LDA to have it blacklisted. It was stated in the letter that:
LDA was forced to minutely examine each submission, oversee internal working of the individuals and engage in lengthy review process that resulted in this submissions being returned several time to correct basic deficiencies such as:
No logical analysis of size of project based on its socioeconomic and demographic features.
No consideration of water level required in the river to create a waterfront No layout plans, conceptual design or analysis of barrages
No plan or proposals for provision of fresh water to the river
No cost analysis beyond schedule rates
No consideration on bridge retrofitting or cost and resettlement implications
No structural analysis or calculation-based designs
No consideration of protection dykes beyond project area
No estimation of actual wastewater discharge using field data Extrapolation of cost of wastewater technologies using per cusec wastewater treatment cost without localization
No consideration of rainwater discharge in wastewater
No study of local and regional economics to devise economic drivers
No real estate study or land price assessments
Costing based on housing society development costs without consideration of trunk infrastructure
No proposals regarding institutions and reforms required to create city of higher standards
No data compilation beyond what was provided by client
No consideration of resettlement impact or costs in overall conceptualization of plan
No consideration of costs, population, or master plan layout in phasing strategy
Generic feasibilities of single units rather than specific ones for different components
Use of Generic designs of river and barrage structures for costing
No physical modeling of proposed river channelization design
No transport modeling to substantiate proposed transport network
No public infrastructure requirements analysis beyond generic benchmarks
No geotechnical analysis of provided geotechnical data or use in planning exercise
No consideration or strategy to accommodate wet weather flow of existing Lahore once river is channeled
No integrated financing strategy or game plan to take the project to market.
Overall, the consultant did not show the level of seriousness required for a project of this size and demonstrated a general lack of understanding of the objective of the project. Similarly deliverables suffered greatly in terms of quality, integration and consistency, requiring major corrections from the client side throughout the process for successful closure of Phase-II.
The above is a damning indictment of Messrs Meinhardt and the letter reproduced above delves in the below par performance exhibited by the consultant in the preparation of feasibility studies.
….It is evident that Meinhardt and the feasibility report prepared by it was found to be lacking in all material particulars and on crucial aspects on which the Project was to be structured. The very architecture of the Project was challenged on various grounds by LDA and the negligence and professional incompetence exhibited by Meinhardt was of such an extent that LDA had no option but to blacklist the consultant for any future projects. No material was placed on record to show that these actions were brought under challenge by Meinhardt.
I don’t think I can add any value with my comments after the damning indictment (court’s wording) by LDA. From our perspective, what is to be kept in mind is that the Meinhardt report was found severely lacking in every aspect and Imran Amin was Director of Operations during this period. Let me paste again what LDA said about the Meinhardt staff in Pakistan working on the report.
Of graver concern however has been misrepresentation of professional staff availability by the consultant. The team deployed by M/s. Meinhardt Singapore (Pte) Ltd. was found to be of substantially lower quality that the one it was obligated to provide under contract. Key individuals named in the contract were not engaged,
Imran Amin as Chairman PIDA - 2020
There were issues with Pakistan Island Development Authority (PIDA) but I will ignore them for this post.
As per his LinkedIn, Imran Amin left Meinhardt at the end of September 2020 and joined PIDA as Chairman in October 2020. That was a pretty quick appointment, as the Ministry of Maritime Affairs placed the ad in the newspaper on Oct 3 and gave a 15-day deadline for submitting applications. Amazing that within 12 days from the last date of application submission, the candidates were shortlisted, interviewed, and finally Imran Amin was selected. As we will find later, when it comes to Imran Amin, this is how things work. The publication of job advertisements in the newspaper is just a formality. Imran is to be appointed anyway.
Imran as Chairman PIDA made a claim about $40-$50 billion investment coming for the Bundal Island.
[UPDATE: Unfortunately, the link in the above tweet doesn’t work as they deleted the video. You will have to take my word for it. I am not making this up.] Another Imran, Imran Ismail, made a similar claim about the incoming investment right around the same time in Oct 2020.
'Bundal Island will eclipse Dubai with $50 billion investment’
Bundal Island project will “surpass Dubai” after it will be developed into a city with an investment of around $50 billion, Sindh Governor Imran Ismail said on Thursday.
He was addressing a news conference in Islamabad after meeting Prime Minister Imran Khan to discuss the matters related to the development of islands off the Karachi’s coast. The premier has directed the Sindh governor to sort out all issues related to Bundal Island with the provincial government.
They aren’t the first to quote such huge numbers. It was Malik Riaz who initially came up with such numbers as $45 billion for Bundal Island project a long time ago.
While Chairman PIDA, Imran Amin signed MoU of $1 billion for Bundal Island for a waste to energy and a desalination plant.
Imran Amin gets unemployed - 2021
Due to multiple controversies, the Federal Government lost interest in the project that was supposed to bring in $50 billion of investment, and allowed the PIDA Ordinance 2020 to lapse.
Ordinance to set up islands development authority has lapsed, SHC told
Jan 16, 2021: A federal law officer on Friday informed the Sindh High Court that the Pakistan Islands Development Authority (PIDA) Ordinance had already lapsed.
Assistant Attorney General Hussain Bohra submitted this before a two-judge bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, during the hearing of a set of petitions challenging the vires of the recently promulgated PIDA Ordinance.
He submitted that the ordinance in question had already lapsed.
Technically, Imran Amin is out of a job. His LinkedIn says he continued as Chairman PIDA till March 2021. Hard to fathom that how can a person remain a Chairman of a defunct entity, but stranger things have happened in this republic.
Meanwhile, at RUDA
Slight digression to set the stage. When Imran Amin was signing MoUs at PIDA, the Chairman of RUDA at the time was also signing MoUs and making claims about surprising everyone with standards of transparency.
The Board of RUDA approved Master Plan by Meinhardt when no such plan existed - 2020
The Chairman RUDA , promising surprising standards of transparency, got the Board of RUDA to agree, in principle, to the Master Plan prepared by Meinhardt, in a RUDA Board meeting held on 14th October 2020. Again from LHC judgment:
The meeting of members of the Board of RUDA took place on 14.10.2020. At item No.5 was the approval of Master Plan of Ravi City (made by Meinhardt). The following decision was taken in that meeting:
The Chairman briefed the Authority members in detail with the help of master plan maps and details for approval and placing this as approved master plan for the new city under the umbrella of RUDA. The Authority shall approach LDA to understand the payment issue and its impact if any for RUDA with its DG and Vice Chairman LDA. Authority was informed that LDA had approved the Master plan in its internal process already. The Authority approved the Master Plan in principle to be taken to potential investors.
In the first column relating to agenda items and which has been set out above it stated that the approval of Master Plan of Ravi City which was made by Meinhardt was required to be done by the members of the Board.
LHC is incredulous at the deception that was carried out in the abovementioned board meeting. (The emphasis in BOLD is mine.)
Two strands of this statement require unpacking. Firstly, the Master Plan of Ravi City had not been prepared by Meinhardt.
It is evident by now that there was no Master Plan as such and Meinhardt had merely been appointed as a technical consultant to prepare certain feasibility reports.
It was not the domain of Meinhardt to prepare a Master Plan in any case.
The members of the Authority were under a misconception regarding the primary ingredients of the decision required to be taken by them in the meeting.
By scheme or artifice, the members of the Board were cajoled into approval of a Master Plan while none existed. Thus, any decision taken by them in that meeting suffers from misdirection of facts which fed through the rest of the decisionmaking process.
Under the circumstances it cannot be conceived that members of RUDA took an informed and intelligent decision to approve the Master Plan of the Project. The decision states that the Chairman briefed the Authority members in detail with the help of master plan maps and details for approval and placing this as an approved master plan for the new city under the umbrella of RUDA.
It is incredulous as to which master plan was being referred to in this decision and on the basis of which the Chairman briefed the members of the Authority. For, as stated above, no master plan was ever prepared by Meinhardt.
Further, the decision is conspicuous for its brevity and it is indeed a matter of deep concern that a decision regarding the Project of enormous magnitude should be taken by the members of the Authority without any dilation and extensive deliberation. There is no doubt in my mind that the members of the Authority abdicated the onerous responsibility placed on their shoulders by the statute.
…..
Thus, the reliance of RUDA on the Master Plan approved by LDA in its meeting on 14.7.2016 is erroneous and has no legal legs to stand upon. In that meeting LDA did not consider let alone approve any Master Plan for the Project which is now conceived by RUDA to be established in the area within its jurisdiction.
As a necessary corollary, therefore, the approval by the Board of RUDA of such a Master Plan is again a figment of the members‘ imagination and they were either not informed properly or were misled into making that decision.
The members acted mechanically and reflexively and fell into breach of trust. It follows indubitably that there is no Master Plan as yet prepared by RUDA and so the very basis of setting up a scheme or a housing scheme has been knocked out. There is no question of a scheme being set up unless a Master Plan has been prepared as a first step.
In a different section of the report, this is what the court says about the above meeting
This begs the question; was it prudent on the part of RUDA to have relied upon a feasibility study prepared by a blacklisted consultant who had shown capricious and uncondonable incompetence in the preparation of the feasibility studies.
The members of RUDA while approving these feasibility studies did not even take the trouble to make an independent analysis of the true facts on the ground nor did they demonstrate a high level of vigilance in taking these decisions which was expected of the members to demonstrate in view of the enormous public trust which was placed in their hands.
The members of RUDA have been derelict in their duty towards the city of Lahore in taking flawed decisions.
I don’t know about you, but I am SURPRISED by these standards of transparency of Chairman Rashed Aziz.
Imran Amin lands at RUDA - 2021
Imran Amin should be unemployed as PIDA Ordinance lapsed. To re-employ him, a position is created of CEO of RUDA and an ad for the position is advertised. The last date of application submission is March 24.
With shortlisting of candidates, interviews, and a final decision, there is no way a candidate can assume the position before May 1st at the earliest. But this is Imran Amin we are talking about. He was appointed with effect from 18th February 2021. If he is getting paid with effect from February 18, 2021, it means he was working as CEO even before the ad was placed.
This charade made it to the prime time talkshow but had no impact on the powers that be, i.e. the Prime Minister.
This position didn’t exist before Imran Amin got unemployed. It was specifically created for him, and RUDA Act was modified to transfer all the powers that the Chairman held to the CEO.
Seeing how he is being toothless and powerless, Chairman RUDA resigns.
Ruda chief steps down over differences with govt - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
“The government also started transferring various powers of the chairman to the CEO, making the former powerless or toothless. It hurt and forced Mr Aziz -- who formed the company, completed various important jobs -- to leave,” an official source told Dawn.
In his resignation submitted to Chief Secretary Jawad Rafique Malik, Mr Aziz said at the time of inception of the authority, he was given the herculean task to build an organisation from the ground up and now his efforts had started bearing fruit. “But it is with deep sorrow and a heavy heart, due to unavoidable personal reasons; I am tendering my resignation from the post of chairman, RUDA. This was a difficult decision, as working for RUDA has been a positive experience and one for which I am thankful,” the letter read.
Mr Aziz, who plans to leave the office in the next couple of days despite the notice period of three months, said a CEO was appointed mostly in companies or small state-owned entities that had specific or limited scope of work.
“The Capital Development Authority, National Highways Authority, Water and Power Development Authority etc are being run successfully by chairmen, as the structure of such entities has a chairman and members. Ruda too is like these authorities, as its scope of work is very big. There are no CEOs or COOs in such structured authorities,” he argued.
“Aik mayan mein do talwarain nahi reh sakti (One man cannot serve two masters).”
Summary
PM’s advisors misled him again.
PM goes to the site Ravi Riverfront two days after the LHC judgment and says that the government didn’t present its case before the Lahore bench clearly. Did no one tell him what was in the LHC judgment?
Head in the clouds
Meanwhile, the government, instead of dealing with the deficiencies highlighted by LHC, gets the social media wing to preach to the choir.
The court judgment covered other deficiencies of the Ravi Riverfront development. In addition, Imran Amin is also heading the Lahore Central Business District, which has its own problems. But in this post, my focus is on Meinhardt and Imran Amin. I may choose to address other issues in a separate piece. It does make you wonder what hold does Imran Amin have over our prime minister.
Do read the LHC judgment. It makes for a riveting read.
Thank you for reading.
SOURCES: Credit where credit is due
Below are the tweets from where I sourced the stuff. Kudos to Dawar Butt for staying on top of it.
