Since August 2020, the president of the EPM Professionals Union, Olga Lucía Arango, in a radio interview said she wanted to warn the country that the true purpose of Mayor Daniel Quintero with the lawsuit he filed at that time once morest the construction consortium of Hidroituango was to deliver the contract for the mega-project to a Chinese firm.
“This lawsuit is a smokescreen – Arango said at the time – and has the background of contracting directly with a Chinese firm. His people have been requesting information from company officials. They inform us that the mayor himself has asked them to meet with this Chinese firm and give them information.”
The curious thing (or the scandalous thing) is that now, although there was no direct delivery of the contract, because among other things Mayor Quintero’s demand failed, the truth is that the only one interested in the tender seems to be the Chinese firm.
As if that were not enough, now EPM, in a maneuver that arouses suspicion, has just agreed to make changes to the tender specifications at the request of a Chinese firm.
Changing the conditions of the tender document at the request of one of the interested parties is not common in the world of public procurement. There are those who say that it is a sheet made to measure, or ‘tailor sheet’.
How did it happen? EPM announced on August 28 that it would reopen the registrations for companies interested in participating in the tender and that it would make changes to the specifications. He said he wanted to allow more plurality. However, reopening the call in the middle of the process is something strange in itself, but even more strange was that it was closed once more in four days without any new firm having registered.
EL COLOMBIANO reviewed the bidding documents, which by law are public, and found several surprises. Among others that in reality the interest in reopening was to change some of the required requirements.
The Chinese firm Yellow River, on July 12, in a letter to EPM, said that they had not been able to find a Colombian partner for the consortium as required by the specifications, but that they did find a firm that did not meet the requirements and therefore asked EPM to please arrange the specifications in such a way that the Colombian firm can comply.
“The intense search for the local partner that we have carried out for more than three months has not been successful,” Yellow River writes. He adds that “many of the local firms that we explore indicate that they are not interested in participating in this project and/or do not comply with the experience requested in the specifications, which limits us from achieving an association with a Colombian company in order to comply with the requirements requested by you and therefore limits our participation in the project bidding”.
And he continues: “We have found an alternative to associate with a local company that is interested and has extensive experience in this type of work, however, in order to comply with the particular conditions, it is necessary for EPM to proceed to reconsider one of the following propositions to the conditions of experience, which the Colombian participant must provide”.
EPM responds to Yellow River, on August 26, with an Addendum, number 7, to the bidding document. In it, he makes several of the changes that the Chinese firm requested.
For example, the specifications required that the local partner had built at least 94,500 cubic meters in portals of tunnels, canals, landfills or bridges, and that this experience might be accredited in a maximum of two works. And in addendum 7, they did the Chinese three favors: first, they reduced the required volume to 28,350 cubic meters. The second, they included that they might accredit that experience in the construction of “framed structures”. In other words, they no longer had to have experience in more complex structures such as bridges, but building houses or buildings was enough. And the third, if the national partner did not have a way to accredit that experience in two works, which was as required in the original specifications, now it can accredit it in four works. That is, you can add the 28,350 cubic meters in several houses or buildings.
The national partner must meet one of two experiences: either the one already mentioned, which is in concrete construction, or another, which is in excavations and construction of wells, tunnels, or caverns. And in that item EPM also made a discount at the request of the Chinese: the specifications previously asked for experience in a minimum tunnel area of 80 square meters and they lower it to 57 square meters.
For José Fernando Villegas, president of the Colombian Chamber of Infrastructure in Antioquia, what happened raises serious questions: “Why before were you interested in the national component having experience in 94,500 cubic meters and today you are satisfied with 28,350? Why lower to 28,350 and why not 29,000 or 30,000? A number like this is very suspicious if it is not round. When one makes a statement, and puts an indicator that is not a round figure, it means that someone in particular wants to win it. It’s what they call a tailor’s sheet”.
And he continues: “In the case of tunnels, it would be natural to go down from 80 square meters to 55 or 60 but not 57”.
The Chinese firm requested these changes with the argument, among others, that it has all the required experience and the requirement “must be consistent with the experiences that local companies have.”
But regardless of whether it is a reasonable claim or not, the truth is that in tenders it is not normal that if someone asks for a change of experience they give it to him. Among other things, it can give rise to lawsuits, because other competitors can say that I did not enter the tender because I did not meet the requirements.
Perhaps that is why EPM reopened registrations, on August 26, for four days, to be able to argue before a court that requires them that they once once more gave everyone the opportunity with the new requirements. However, the imbalance would continue to be latent because while the other competitors will have almost six months for their proposals, any firm that would have been encouraged to join at the end of August, which none did, would only have a month and a half.
a hot potato
This tender has become an insert for EPM. The closing date has already had to be modified four times. The first was due on June 23, then July 27, then August 17, and the last was left for October 14.
Many signs suggest that the only interested party is the Chinese firm, Yellow River, and the one that would accompany it as a national partner would be the Colombian firm Schrader Camargo, a firm from Bogotá, which has been working in construction since the 1980s and even today has a contract in Hidroituango. .
Between June 2 and August 30, the only two companies that have asked EPM questions in the bidding process are China’s Yellow Rivers and Colombia’s Schrader Camargo.
The Chinese seem to be clear regarding the enormous negotiation capacity they have at this time, because they know that practically since his arrival almost three years ago, Mayor Daniel Quintero has firmly in his mind signing a new contract with Hidroituango. And as he got into that fraud, every week that passes without construction being started on what they have called “the second stage” of the mega-project, generates a loss of profits of 26,000 million pesos, which in a percentage is money that is failing. receive the department of Antioquia.
And the only option left for Mayor Quintero and manager Jorge Carrillo to get out of the tremendous mess they caused in Hidroituango is that of the Chinese.
For this reason, perhaps, in the letter dated July 12, Yellow River tells EPM: “We thank you in advance for considering and confirming the approval of one of these proposals as soon as possible, otherwise we would not be able to present an offer for the works. object of this invitation.
Why only in July did Yellow River ask to change the requirements of its local partner if the bidding was opened since April? This is asked by those who have been close to the process. And in the construction circles, the answer is one: who was called to be the local partner was one of the companies of the builder William Vélez that met all the requirements, but Vélez saw so many reputational risks in that adventure that he preferred to stay margin.
This newspaper was able to corroborate that, in effect, William Vélez was at some point interested, but the reasons why he would have distanced himself from the process are not clear.
15
October is the date on which the first Hidroituango turbine will be turned on.
