The Parliamentary Service Board (PSB) has dismissed claims that it favoured Sir David Adjaye & Associates in awarding the contract for the construction of the controversial new parliamentary chamber.
petition to President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, Design Associates
Development Consortium further raised concerns over Mr Adjaye’s legitimacy to
practice in Ghana because he is not a resident per the Architects Decree (NRCD
It also complained about alleged “total and absolute disregard and non-adherence to principles of transparency, fairness, equity and the laws governing the procurement of professional services by stature companies and bodies.”
However, a statement signed and issued in Accra by Matthew Abrefa Tawiah, Secretary of the PSB, discounted the claims stating that “the Consortium peddled erroneous impression in the petition.”
It said Sir David Adjaye & Associates won the contract fairly and was adjudged based on the scoring of a technical team
The statement noted that Sir David Adjaye & Associates was scored 77.06
It added that Parliament wrote to and sought concurrent approval of the Public Procurement Authority (PPA) for restrictive tendering among three shortlisted architectural design firms for the proposed new Parliamentary Chamber Complex.
The statement explained that the reason for Parliament referring the design competition to the Architects Registration Council (ARC) was to subject the selection process to full professional scrutiny.
It stated that Design Associates & Development Consortium, Sir David Adjaye & Associates and a third shortlisted firm, Great Wall Industry Corporation of China, which was disqualified on technical grounds, were all invited to participate in the bidding process
The ARC, the statement said,
As the designs were submitted anonymously, it noted that they were
The statement said the members of the assessment panel did their scoring independently after which the two firms were written to by the ARC to come and identify their schemes.
“Design Associates & Development Consortium obliged and identified
their Scheme as the one labelled 02, whereas Sir David Adjaye Associates
identified theirs as the one labelled Scheme 01. Your company approved of every
stage of the process. All ten assessors placed Sir David Adjaye &
Associates’ design first,” the statement indicated.
Although Section 78 of the Public Procurement Act 2003 (Act 663) provides an opportunity for appeal, it said Design Associates & Development Consortium never appealed against any part of the selection process.
“This resort to unjustified public damnations is, to say the least, most unfortunate,” the statement noted.
BY TIMES REPORTER