Consulting Engineers South Africa

(CESA)

Border Kei Branch

Planning Workshop

17th November 2009

Facilitated byStephen Keet Associates

1INTRODUCTION

This document reflects the deliberations and output of a CESA Border-Kei Branchplanning workshop held at the East London Golf Club on the 17th November 2009.

The initiative was taken in order to bring to action some of the concerns that have been expressed at previous CESA Border-Kei Branch (CESA B-K B) meetings and provide direction on how the Border-Kei Branch could meaningfully contribute to its own members and Society.

2Workshop Objectives

The participants agreed that the objective of the workshop was to:

Formulate a plan through which the CESA (B-K B) would address the key issues affecting members’ abilities to perform and therefore contribute to the society in which its members operate.

3CESA Role

It was noted that the roles that CESA B-K B can play in relation to improving the situation for members include:

  • Initiate interventions
  • Facilitate and co-ordinate
  • Liaise with clients.
  • Provide funding – to a limited extent but can be sourced e.g. DBSA.
  • Initiate court actions.
  • Lobbying.
  • Media management.
  • Enable CESA B-K member collaboration.
  • Draw from CESA National.
  • Create opportunities for members to socialize.

4WORKSHOP OUTPUT

The workshop used a brainstorming and narrowing process to identify the Key Issues to be addressed by the Action Plan. Objectives were then formulated as indicators of achievement. Action items were listed as steps towards the achievement of objectives.

It still remains to identify and reach agreement with individuals within CESA B-K B to take responsibility for the action items within time-tables yet to be set.

4.1Key Issues

The following key issues were identified during a brainstorming session (the brainstorming notes are reflected in 5):

  1. Public Sector Client Capacity
  2. Political Acceptability of CESA B-K
  3. Inadequate Training of Poorly Qualified Graduates
  4. Competitive Bidding and Sustainability
  5. Inadequate Regulation While Transforming
  6. Inappropriate Appointment of Contractors
  7. Societal Awareness of Industry
  8. Political Interference
  9. Inappropriate Legislation and Regulations
  10. Bribery and Corruption

4.2Key Issues and Objectives

As a starting point for the development of the action plan, objectives were formulated for each of the key issues identified.

Due to time-constraints, six of the ten key issues were developed further. It was agreed that the six were of highest priority, and that the remainder would be developed within CESA.

Key Issue / Border-Kei CESA Objectives
Public Sector Client Capacity /
  • Provide support to four selected public sector client departments to enable professional performance by 2013

Political Acceptability of CESA /
  • Become a body that is politically accepted, respected and engaged as the recognized representative of Border-Kei consulting engineers by 2010

Inadequate Training of Poorly Qualified Graduates /
  • Provide experiential training opportunities to 15 young undergraduates from CESA B-K supported WSU per annum

Competitive Bidding and Sustainability /
  • Enable members and clients to develop a thorough understanding of the impact of competitive bidding on sustainability – starting in 2010
  • Engage national CESA by 2010 to reverse legislation pertaining to competitive bidding

Inadequate Regulation While Transforming /
  • Create conditions within CESA, by 2010, that will attract membership of emerging consulting engineers
  • Create awareness for client organizations about the benefit of appointing consulting engineers according to the skills required for a specific project by 2010

Inappropriate Appointment of Contractors /
  • Ensure that projects in which CESA members have responsibility are properly matched in respect of contractors capacity and project requirements

Societal Awareness of Industry /
  • Held over for next stage

Political Interference /
  • Held over for next stage

Inappropriate Legislation and Regulations /
  • Held over for next stage

Bribery and Corruption /
  • Held over for next stage

4.3Plan of Action

Action plans were formulated by two groups of participants. Each group worked with three key issues, and then exchanged the outputs with the other group for additions and suggestions.

The participants undertook to identify people who would take responsibility for the action items, and would then agree completion dates.

Strategic Issue/Goal / Public Sector Client Capacity
Strategic Objective / Provide support to four selected public sector client departments to enable professional performance by 2013
Strategies / Strategy / Resp / Date
  • 4 Clients selected - ADM, BCM, ECDPW, ORTDM
  • Determine for each, the areas for improvement and the value proposition of CESA
  • Identify, brief and mandate suitable CESA member to engage in “partnering” meetings
  • Formulate and agree program of action with clients to addressthe issues.
  • Could include:
  • Provision of technical and administrative support
  • Exposure to proper technical services
  • Development of templates
  • Seminars/Training (DBSA, CIDB, SAFCEC, BEPs, SACPMC, Emerging Contractors Bodies)
  • Paid mentoring of new consultants Etc.

o.

Strategic Issue/Goal / Political Acceptability of CESA
Strategic Objective / Become a body that is politically accepted, respected and engaged as the recognized representative of Border-Kei consulting engineers by 2010
Strategies / Strategy / Resp / Date
  • Perform an honest assessment of reasons why CESA may currently not be accepted and respected
  • Take action to remedy according to the results
  • Transform local CESA structures to reflect demographics
  • Identify and deploy selected members who can engage at political level
  • Investigate co-operation with BMF and PBF (Progressive Business Forum)
  • Re-establish co-operation with SABTACO (SA Black Technical and Allied Contractors Organization)
  • Actively involve YPF (Young Professionals Forum)
(Note – I think this is also about how members and the organization are perceived – and like any mostly white mid-aged male dominated group, it will need something drastic!)
Strategic Issue/Goal / Inadequate Training of Poorly Qualified Graduates
Strategic Objective / Provide experiential training opportunities to 15 young undergraduates from CESA supported WSU per annum
Strategies / Strategy / Resp / Date
  • Secure formal agreement from CESA members to take responsibility for 15 trainees
  • Take steps to recruit and engage 15 trainees per annum
  • Consult WSU on areas of possible CESA support. This could include material and financial support, lectures, field days, career guidance, tutorial support etc
  • Develop a support plan according to outcome and secure commitment from CESA members to act accordingly
  • Monitor and review progress annually with a view to continuous improvement

Strategic Issue/Goal / Competitive Bidding and Sustainability
Strategic Objective / Enable members and clients to develop a thorough understanding of the impact of competitive bidding on sustainability – starting in 2010
Strategies / Strategy / Resp / Date
  • Arrange a workshop for members (and clients) on competitive bidding – to be presented by an outside party
  • Arrange workshop on preparation of Terms of Reference for members and clients
  • Workshop on risk/uncertainties in bids and appointments
  • Review information requirements annually and arrange appropriate interventions

Strategic Objective / Engage national CESA by 2010 to reverse legislation pertaining to competitive bidding
Strategies / Strategy / Resp / Date
  • Send National CESA a letter about the impact of competitive bidding on members, with the objective of reversing legislation
/ MR / Monthly
Strategic Issue/Goal / Inadequate Regulation While Transforming
Strategic Objective / Create conditions within CESA, by 2010, that will attract membership of emerging consulting engineers
Strategies / Strategy / Resp / Date
  • Perform an honest assessment of possible reasons for lack of current interest
  • Take steps to transform on the basis of the assessment
  • Create “candidate” membership with roadmap for full membership
  • Obtain support from members for recruitment of emerging consulting engineers into CESA
  • Identify and introduce potential candidates socially
  • Explore opportunities for JVs between members and emerging consulting engineers
  • Compile and circulate a one-pager setting out details and value of CESA
  • Engage client departments for support and awareness creation in respect of steps being taken

Strategic Objective / Create awareness for client organizations about the benefit of appointing consulting engineers according to the skills required for specific projects by 2010
Strategies / Strategy / Resp / Date
  • Identify key people and departments for whom such information is important
  • Program client partnering meetings
  • Circulate a one-pager setting out details and value of CESA
  • Broaden and improve nomination for CESA and SAICE awards to support the achievement of this objective

Strategic Issue/Goal / Inappropriate Appointment of Contractors
Strategic Objective / Ensure that projects in which CESA members have responsibility are properly matched in respect of contractors capacity and project requirements
Strategies / Strategy / Resp / Date
  • Prepare “standard statements” to be included in bid adjudication reports:
-Additional fees
-Extended time/overrun
-Penalties
-Proof of plant ownership/access to plant – condition of tender
  • Encourage members to improve feedback to CIDB
  • Highlight need for mentors and risks at clients partnering meetings
-Add mentorship to schedule of quantities
  • Create CESA award for emerging contractors

5CONCLUSION

The workshop concluded with the following points:

  • Despite the initial concerns about the multitude of issues that had been raised, the workshop had formulated a plan that made resolution of the key issues possible;
  • The challenge would be for a voluntary association such as CESA to secure commitment by its members to take the required action;
  • Members who did not attend would be given the opportunity to contribute towards to the plan.

6Brainstorming Notes

To identify the Key Issues, participants formulated responses to a question

“What are the Key Factors affecting the ability of CESA members to perform?

Responses were then grouped by the workshop participants and labeled as follows:

Political Acceptability of CESA

  • Mistrust in client bodies of our motivation
  • CESA apathy.
  • No political liaison champion.
  • CESA appears very white.
  • CESA lacks political clout.

Awareness of Industry/Sector

  • Inefficiency due to poor link between political objectives and engineering practicality.
  • Lack of appreciation of engineers contributions to society.
  • Lack of support due to poor communication and involvement.
  • Use of engineering money to achieve political goals.
  • Lack of concern by politicians for working services, i.e. economic development.
  • Political derailment of processes.
  • Poor service delivery due to low priority given to engineering services.

InappropriateAppointment of Contractors

  • CIDB is failing the industry.
  • Emerging contractors are doomed to fail.
  • Poor contractors.
  • Lack of contractor’s supervision.

Corruption/Bribery

  • Corruption is reported to be widespread.
  • Lack of integrity in the industry.
  • Corruption and bribes.

Inadequate Regulation While Transforming

  • Consultants not properly qualified.
  • Questionable ethics by some.
  • Acting engineers in the market place.
  • “Consulting engineers “being allowed to practice when they do not have necessary skills.

Political Interference

  • Clients’ technical managers are pawns of their political masters.
  • Political interference.
  • Excessive political interference (no devolution of power).
  • Lack of co-ordination of efforts at political/Government level.
  • Political uncertainty.

Public Sector Technical Capacity

  • Clients not wanting to make decisions.
  • Clients are expenditure driven – not always appropriate.
  • Demystify documentation for clients.
  • Uninformed clients with limited technical skills.
  • Contract documents not understood.
  • Lack of appreciation for importance of engineering work.
  • Poor bid documents and briefs.
  • Poor scoping of jobs for tendering.
  • Procurement committees making poor decisions.
  • Inefficiency due to poor client decision making – not technically informed.
  • Poor service and poor prioritization of projects.
  • Poor planning, late appointments.
  • Private sector expected to take over and perform Government roles.

Competitive Bidding and Sustainability

  • Low tender prices make training difficult.
  • Unfair fee competition.
  • Discounted fees.
  • Poor consultants - unfair competition.
  • Compromised quality due to under qualified appointments.
  • Unbalanced procurement criteria reduce business sustainability.
  • Discounted fees.
  • Bidding process (for engineering appointments).
  • Untransparent procurement.
  • Consultants rosters not used.
  • Incompetent unqualified competitors.

Inadequate Training of Poorly Qualified Graduates

  • Shortage of middle-aged 35-45 year old experienced professionals.
  • Generation of retiring experienced professionals.
  • Skills shortage in industry.
  • Poor quality of young graduates.
  • Quality of supporting staff.
  • High mobility of client’s technical staff.
  • Local training institutional problems.
  • Government not investing in training.
  • Poorly educated engineers.
  • Young people do not want to be full time resident engineers.
  • High cost of business due to unskilled client requires more input.

Inappropriate Legislation and Regulations

  • Lack of industry norms.
  • Lack of industry regulation.
  • Government advisory bodies and councils populated with non-industry nominees.
  • Cumbersome reporting requirements.
  • National policies not always appropriate to Eastern Cape.
  • Inappropriate use of legislation.
  • Unwieldy legislation.

Client Payment Ethics

  • Slow payment.
  • Non payment of fees.
  • Late payments of accounts by clients.
  • High cost of business due to delayed payments.

Uncategorized

  • Insufficient time to address important issues sufficiently.
  • Work equals 90% admin work and 10% engineering work.

The category headings became the Key Issue labels. These were then prioritized by the members as presented in Section 4.

Page 1