Water, Sewage & Effluent March April 2019 | Page 20

for successful completion. Unfathomably,
within a few months and by ‘final design’
stage, the proposed scope of work and
cost had escalated to unacceptable levels
and, according to the consulting engineers:
“Due to funding constraints, the project
will be approached in two (2) separate
phases of treatment capacity 1ML/day
each. Funds available for phase one of
the proposed upgrade will be dedicated
to the construction of key components
to satisfy the original proposal
submitted by Rhodes University”; and
“The detailed project cost is estimated
at R60 016 251.23 (incl. VAT, Contractor
P&G, 10% contingencies, professional
fees and additional services).”
The overall project objective was to
upgrade treatment capacity to 2ML/d
by converting the current conventional
oxidation pond system to an IAPS, and
to demonstrate the robustness and
sustainable characteristics of IAPS
to create a viable platform to launch
sustainable food security and job creation.
Details of the proposed system are
illustrated below, while the measurable
deliverables were to:
• Increase municipal WWT capacity
by up to 12 500 PE;
• Produce water suitable for irrigation
and/or infiltration;
• Confirm that energy required for
IAPS is less than 10kWh/PE/y;
• Confirm the construction costs for a
2ML/d IAPS;
• Integrate co-product streams
for valorisation via community
engagement; and
• Technology transfer and operator
training.
Unfortunately, the partner DM found
itself in the unenviable situation of having
exhausted all funds it had committed to this
and other infrastructure projects. Despite
every effort on the part of the WRC and
the project team, no further activity was
possible and on 20 May 2016, a decision
to terminate this project was taken and
communicated to the DM as follows:
“… has reviewed progress for project
… and noted the risks relating to
challenges regarding environmental
impact assessment and regulatory
licences approvals as well as failure
by Chris Hani Local(sic) Municipality
to secure co-funding for project
implementation. Based on the
outcomes of this review, the WRC
would proceed and terminate project.”
Again, both implementation of IAPS
technology and realisation of its
18
downstream benefits (that is, clean
water, renewable energy, and biomass)
at commercial demonstrator scale had
been foiled by circumstances beyond
control and comprehension.
Case study 2
An amount of R13.5-million was awarded
by the DST to Umjindi (Mbombela)
LM for implementation of an IAPS.
Following a series of site visits as
well as engagement and liaison with
the Umjindi LM mayoral committee, a
concept project proposal was accepted
and underpinned by signature of a
memorandum of agreement between
the LM and a consortium that included
EBRU and the appointed consulting
engineers. The project proceeded
without hindrance through the inception
and preliminary design stages with an
estimated cost to construct a 1ML/d
IAPS of R12.5-million. Measurable
deliverables were to include:
• Increased municipal sewage
treatment capacity by up to 5 000
PE;
• Production of >250ML/y clean
water for irrigation or infiltration;
• Confirmation that energy needed
for IAPS is <10kWh/y/PE;
• Confirmation of construction costs
for a 0.75ML/d IAPS;
• Production of 5 000–7 500 kg/y
algae-based fertiliser; and
• Promotion of technology to
municipalities for municipal
wastewater treatment.
By final design stage, nearly six months
later, the cost estimate to build this 1ML/d
IAPS had escalated to >R20-million.
Clearly, intervention and redirection
were required. After substantial effort on
the part of EBRU to facilitate an iterative
process that lasted approximately six
months and was accompanied by the
submission of a series of IAPS designs, a
revised final design for a 0.75ML/d IAPS
was accepted. This EBRU-approved
design was used by the appointed
consultants to secure environmental
authorisation (EA), which was granted
by the Department of Agriculture, Rural
Development, Land & Environmental
Affairs, Mpumalanga, on 29 August
2017. Even so, it was not long before this
project was also to be derailed.
First, and in the interim, an open
public tender for construction of the
0.75ML/d IAPS was carried out. The
tender window closed with just eight
bids received as shown in Table 1. Also
shown, is the cost estimate (in bold) for
the IAPS determined by the consulting
engineers.
Water Sewage & Effluent March/April 2019
Table 1: Outcome of an open public
tender for construction of the 0.75ML
per day IAPS
Name of
tenderer Tendered
amount (ZAR
incl. VAT) CIDB
grading
A 23,336,716.00 7CEPE
B 22,474,241.29 6CEPE
C 20,489,676.57 6CEPE
D 20,193,697.96 7CEPE
E 19,266,021.09 7CEPE
F 19,135,926.35 6CE
G 17,042,456.78 7CEPE
H 16,352,927.45 6CEPE
Cost estimate
13,177,157.02
by CE
>6CE
It is clear that the outcome of this tender
yielded bids that were for reasons
unknown to the authors, R3-million to
R10-million above the cost estimate
and far in excess of the available
funding. Second, based on the above
estimates and in the absence of a
proper tender evaluation report, it was
irrationally argued by representatives
of a reference/advisory group that the
bespoke IAPS was ‘flawed’ and should
be subject to redesign for re-costing.
Indeed, in a report to the WRC and the
EBRU-led project team it was stated:
“Due to the simplicity of the design,
the construction costs of IAPS plants
should be far lower than the cost of
activated sludge (AS) systems and other
technologies of equivalent capacity.
… the cost of a 1 megaliter(sic)
activated sludge (AS) plant is expected
to be in the region R12-million to R15-
million.
… the lowest tender was in the range
of approximately R17-million for a 0.75
megaliter(sic) plant — extrapolating
this means an order of magnitude of
R23-million for a 1 megaliter(sic) IAPS
plant.
The design of the plant was also
questioned. It was decided that
the design should be re-visited by
members.”
It seems that the reference/advisory
group had paid little attention to the
detail of the approved IAPS design,
which had been costed at ~R13.2-million.
Nevertheless, the project team facilitated
a redesign exercise, which was carried
out by an independent registered
professional engineer. EBRU determined
that the resultant process and financials
www.waterafrica.co.za