November 2013
CONSTRUCTION WORLD
12
The South African Institution of Civil Engineering (SAICE) reiterates
its abhorrence of any form of corruption, especially in the
engineering community.
marketplace
INALL SUCH INSTANCES
the need for justice
and recompense is paramount and, although
deeply saddened by it, SAICE stands by the
punitive action that has been taken against
many of the biggest contracting companies
in our country. It is only right that a portion
of their income deemed to be commensurate
with their ill-gotten gains be deducted along
with a fitting fine to deter them and others
from doing so again.
Has justice now been served? Not quite.
Then, is further punitive action against the
companies that took part in the collusion
required to serve the ends of justice? SAICE
has to question this notion on the grounds
that the punishment should fit the crime and
above all else the guilty should be punished
rather than the innocent. The companies in-
volved employmany thousands of workers of
all categories, including some of SAICE’s finest
engineers, who had no hand in the collusion
and did their work with exemplary skill and
diligence to deliver outstanding engineering
works in an amazingly short space of time –
saving South Africa the embarrassment of
stadiums not completed on time. Is it just
to hound them into unemployment? SAICE
believes not.
But there is one very important act of jus-
tice that has beenomitted. Companies paying
fines cannot expunge the corruption that
stemmed from the individuals who know-
ingly participated in or condoned the acts of
collusion.To date hardly any such individuals
have had to face justice. These individuals
have brought the engineering profession
into disrepute and need to be censured in
the strongest possible terms. Where appro-
priate, the right to operate as professional
engineering practitioners should be revoked
and some, including those involved who are
not engineering practitioners, may need to
face legal action in their individual capacity.
As a non-statutory voluntary associa-
tion, SAICE does not have the authority or
the means to carry out the investigations
required tofindoutwhowas responsible or to
take appropriate legal action. These powers
and duties vest in the Engineering Council of
South Africa (ECSA), a duly appointed statu-
tory organisation, and SAICE offers them its
support in carrying out their duties. SAICE
trusts that this can be done speedily in order
to deal with the faulted individuals, to then
lay aside these encumbrances and get on
with the mammoth task of rolling out the
infrastructure that our nation relies on engi-
neering practitioners to produce.
On the other hand, however, SAICE must
question the motives of those who wish to
decimate the biggest engineering compa-
nies in South Africa as it could have severe
consequences for infrastructure develop-
ment in the country. Is it to serve justice,
or to muscle in on a corner of the market?
Such protagonists might indeed grow to be
a slightly bigger fish in a pond that has been
drained. But at what cost to justice?
●
Big company collusion
Some facts about civil
engineering companies
The following conclusions have been
drawn from long term research by the
South African Federation of Civil Engi-
neering Contractors (SAFCEC):
The share of big companies in civil
engineering in SA is strongly related to the
stage of the business cycle. At the bottom
of the cycle (no growth or contraction)
medium and small companies occupy
roughly 50% of the domestic) market,
with the big groups around 40% (or 80%)
of the remainder. During this phase of
the cycle, big companies tend to capture
larger portions of the international market
in their efforts to maintain capacity.
As growth starts to accelerate, the big
groups tend to absorb domesticmedium
and smaller companies (or form joint
ventures with international groups), to
enable rapid expansion or to acquire
specialities needed for domestic capacity.
Depending on the pace of growth and the
characteristics of the projects (number
and size of projects), the large groups can
capture up to 70% of the overall market
at the peak of the cycle.
As growth starts to slowdown, people
are laid off and joint ventures broken up,
with the result that the share of smaller or
mediumcompanies increases again, until
work runs out and a new 50:50 relation-
ship is established.
In view of this, is the Wisdom of Solo-
mon needed, not to cut the baby in half
and lose everything?
