BK International, in a press statement yesterday, said it had not yet received its official copy of the report on the November 3 breach but is challenging it based on reports in the media.

It said that the team made its conclusions on the basis of conditions in the vicinity of the breached area, after the breach, which "is highly risky because conditions in the area after the breach were dramatically different from the situation which obtained before the breach".

BK International noted that the team's viewpoint is supported "by the slippage behind the northern line of sheet piles used to seal the breach after additional load was placed behind it" but stated that it is even more risky to make any conclusions about an unstable location in the midst of emergency work to seal the breach.

It said in the circumstances, and until the team is in a position to impartially and scientifically evaluate all possible options, BK International will reserve its position as to causation in the same way that the 1968 breach remains an historical disaster of unknown origin.

The formal report of the committee that was chaired by Guyana Sugar Corporation Director of Agricultural Services, Dr. Harold Davis, Jr., to investigate the cause of the breach of the dam at Cane Grove, was officially released last month.

The report pointed out that in many areas the more than $151M contract given to B&K Construction to rehabilitate the conservancy was not executed in accordance with the general conditions, technical specifications, method statement or bill of quantities.

In its report the committee indicated that the entire Annandale to Cane Grove dam appears to be in a critical condition and requires urgent attention.

The committee found that the conditions in the vicinity of the breached area have led it to conclude that the breach was as a result of excessive seepage, which led to piping.

On the wee hours of November 3 last year, the rehabilitated conservancy dam at Flagstaff was breached plunging some 400 residents of Cane Grove under some four feet of water.

Visiting the area at the time, President Bharrat Jagdeo had promised that those responsible will have to pay.

The committee also found that no dam assessment was carried out to determine whether it was feasible to undertake the dam construction and that the Bill of Quantities made provision for clearing the area of the conservancy dam of all vegetation and stripping of the topsoil. The committee found this concept to be incomprehensible, as the dam is more than 100 years old and well consolidated.

The team also found that the technical specifications for the project were apparently copied from a sea defence contract, as the specifications in relation to the earthworks are inappropriate to the contract and more suitable to sea defence construction.

Further, the committee found that important aspects in the contract relating to the correct quality of material, method of construction, stability of slopes which are necessary to ensure the soundness of the dam were not strictly adhered to.

Among other findings by the committee was that there was no laboratory testing of fill material to ensure its suitability for dam construction, that the engineer's assistant inspected the material visually to determine its suitability, and that the quality of fill material used to form the dam was poor, being constructed with pegasse clay material, in which deep cracks developed in the dry weather.

In its press statement, BK International stated that it was at all times fulfilling its contractual obligations, both written and oral, and was never once advised of any deviation from instructions or from the contract requirements.

It said the team itself commented on the fragility of the dam and notwithstanding all the risks, difficulties and deficiencies, it undertook the job and laboured night and day to bring some measure of stability.

It said that of 153,120 ft or 29 miles of remedial work, 40 ft gave way for reasons still unknown and the construction company exerted every effort to seal the breach in record time.

"Everyone recognises that more work needs to be done to ensure greater stability", it stated.

According to BK International, all material requested by the committee by the Drainage and Irrigation Board was delivered to it.

It said information requested by the team was already delivered to the Board and in many cases there were no copies of its photographs and drawings.

BK International said it is willing to share information in its possession with any competent authority but added it never received a single letter from the team requesting information.

It said that from page 12 onward, the team lumped together "areas of non compliance by both the Engineer and Contractor".

"We would have preferred for the team to separate these so-called areas so as to afford us an opportunity to offer our explanations", it said.

BK International said that in its method statement, it had proposed strengthening the dam by virtually building a new dam behind the existing one.

It said this approach was not favoured in the actual contract and if it had been, things would have been much different. The contract was executed on the basis of a design/drawing enshrined in the agreement, it said.

BK International still recommends that its proposals be seriously studied.

It said it contests the position that it did not intend to import material from outside the half-mile radius claiming that it mobilised equipment for this purpose but it was not required.

It said the contract on page 75 permitted excavation outside a distance of 60 ft from the crest of the dam and the company faithfully complied with this requirement.

"It is not true that the permitted distance was 100' as stated on P 52 of the report", it stated.

"...BK International is mindful of a range of viewpoints on the cause of the breach and has its own. Others have theirs. Nothing is proven conclusively. Everything is speculation and unscientific extrapolation", it stated.

Secondly, the specific items in the report have nothing to do with what the team said is "seepage and piping" and much of it BK International challenges.

It said that as for the team itself, some of the members were members of the Drainage and Irrigation Board but never once shared with the Engineer and Contractor their concerns during the work itself.

"The fact remains that with time, the dam has indeed acquired a great fragility and needs to be approached with tremendous caution and sound engineering expertise", BK International stated.