A Missed Opportunity for Engineering Capacity Development
By Eng. Vaughn I. Lezama, B.Sc., FAPETT, M.ASCE, R.Eng.
Registrar, Board of Engineering of Trinidad and Tobago (BOETT)
CEO and Principal Engineer, Consulting Engineers Associates 2005 Ltd (CEAL)
1. Introduction
The Government of Trinidad and Tobago’s Revitalization Programme has been presented as a transformative, once-in-a-generation initiative aimed at stimulating economic growth, generating employment, and delivering critical infrastructure across the country. With over one hundred projects reportedly envisaged and projections of more than 50,000 jobs, the programme has understandably generated optimism across the construction sector.
For the engineering profession, such a programme should represent far more than short-term economic stimulation. It should serve as a strategic vehicle for national capacity development, strengthening the local consulting engineering sector and ensuring long-term sustainability in infrastructure delivery.
However, the procurement approach adopted for engineering consultancy services under this programme raises serious concerns. Rather than fostering local participation and growth, the chosen model risks entrenching dependence on external expertise and undermining the development of indigenous engineering capacity.
2. Context: The Role of Procurement in Capacity Development
The development of engineering capacity is fundamentally linked to procurement policy. In countries where the State is the dominant client in the construction sector—as is the case in Trinidad and Tobago—procurement decisions directly shape the structure, capability, and sustainability of the engineering sector. The development of engineering capacity is not accidental; it is the direct outcome of deliberate policy, structured opportunities, and sustained engagement. Therefore, procurement policies of the State, through agencies such as UDeCOTT, significantly shape the evolution of the industry.
Local engineering consultancy firms are typically small to medium-sized enterprises, employing between 3 and 20 engineers. Their ability to grow depends on:
- Continuous access to appropriately scaled projects
- Progressive exposure to increasingly complex assignments
- Opportunities for collaboration and knowledge transfer
- Fair and transparent procurement processes
Without these conditions, capacity stagnates or declines, regardless of the number of graduates entering the profession.
The World Bank Procurement Regulations explicitly recognize procurement as a tool for development, noting that procurement should contribute to “the development of national capacity and local industry participation,” and “Promote the participation of local firms and strengthen domestic markets.”
Similarly, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Recommendation on Public Procurement (2015) emphasizes that public procurement should be used strategically to:
- Support economic development and innovation
- Encourage participation of SMEs
- Promote sustainable and inclusive growth
Both the World Bank and FIDIC recommend:
- Breaking large programmes into smaller, manageable packages
- Aligning contract size with market capacity
- Encouraging wider participation
These principles establish that procurement is not merely transactional—it is transformational when properly designed.
3. The Procurement Approach under the Revitalization Programme
Under the Revitalization Programme, UDeCOTT issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultancy services covering thirteen major projects. Critically, it was confirmed that:
- A single contract would be awarded to one consultant, and
- No packaging or multiple awards would be considered
This decision has profound implications.
Given the scale, complexity, and compressed timelines, with one to two months for deliverables, it is evident that:
- No single local firm possesses the capacity to execute the entire scope independently
- The contract will almost inevitably be awarded to a large international firm, possibly with multi-national offices among whom the projects can be farmed out and delivered in the one to two months’ time frame.
- Local firms, at best, will participate only as minor sub-consultants—if at all
This model effectively excludes meaningful local participation at the highest level of professional engagement.
The FIDIC Guidelines for the Selection of Consultants (2019) caution against excessive bundling of consultancy services, noting that:
“Packaging of assignments should be carefully structured to encourage competition and allow participation by qualified local firms.”
FIDIC further emphasizes that consultancy selection should:
- Promote quality-based selection (QBS)
- Encourage development of local consulting industries
- Avoid procurement structures that exclude capable but smaller firms
The procurement approach adopted by UDeCOTT for engineering consultancy services under the Revitalization Programme is the antithesis of these recommended approaches.
4. Why This Approach Undermines Capacity Building
4.1 Concentration of Opportunity
Awarding all projects to a single consultant concentrates:
- Technical experience
- Financial benefits
- Strategic influence
in one entity—likely foreign—thereby denying local firms the opportunity to grow through direct responsibility.
4.2 Absence of Learning Pathways
Capacity building requires graduated exposure—from smaller assignments to complex, multidisciplinary projects. A single bundled contract removes:
- Entry points for emerging firms
- Opportunities for mid-tier firms to scale
- Mechanisms for structured mentoring and joint ventures
4.3 Marginalization of Local Expertise
Even where local firms are engaged as sub-consultants, their role is typically limited to:
- Data collection
- Minor design inputs
- Administrative support
Such participation does not build core engineering capability, nor does it develop leadership in project conception, design, or delivery.
4.4 Short-Term Efficiency vs Long-Term Sustainability
While a single-contract model may appear administratively efficient, it prioritizes short-term expediency over long-term national interest.
Development must be understood not merely as the delivery of physical infrastructure, but as a process that builds institutional and professional capacity alongside assets.
5. International Best Practice in Engineering Capacity Development
Globally, countries that have successfully developed strong engineering sectors have adopted procurement strategies aligned with capacity-building objectives.
5.1 Project Packaging and Lotting
Best practice encourages the division of large programmes into manageable packages, allowing:
- Multiple firms to participate
- Risk to be distributed
- Capacity to develop across the sector
This approach is widely used by institutions such as:
- Multilateral Development Banks (World Bank, IDB)
- Governments in emerging economies seeking industry development
5.2 Mandatory Local Participation
Many jurisdictions implement policies requiring:
- Minimum levels of local content
- Joint ventures between international and local firms
- Defined knowledge transfer obligations
5.3 Structured Capacity Development
Successful models incorporate:
- Mentorship arrangements
- Skills transfer programmes
- Progressive increase in local firm responsibilities over time
5.4 Predictable Project Pipelines
Sustainable capacity development depends on continuity of work, not one-off projects. Governments that succeed in building local industries provide:
- Transparent project pipelines
- Consistent procurement cycles
- Opportunities for firms to plan and invest in growth
6. The Trinidad & Tobago Context: A Missed Strategic Opportunity
Trinidad and Tobago has already experienced:
- A decline in direct engagement of consulting engineers in project development
- Increasing reliance on contractors and project managers as substitutes for engineering leadership
- Limited policy focus on strengthening the local consulting engineering sector
The Revitalization Programme could have reversed these trends by:
- Creating structured opportunities for local firms
- Building a new generation of engineering leaders
- Strengthening national resilience in infrastructure delivery
Instead, the current procurement model risks deepening existing weaknesses.
7. A Better Approach: Aligning Procurement with National Development Goals
To align the Revitalization Programme with engineering capacity development, the following measures are recommended:
7.1 Disaggregation of Consultancy Services
- Divide the programme into multiple packages
- Allow for multiple awards based on competence and specialization
7.2 Joint Venture Requirements
- Require international firms to partner with local firms
- Ensure meaningful participation, not token involvement
7.3 Defined Knowledge Transfer Mechanisms
- Include contractual obligations for training and mentorship
- Monitor and enforce delivery of capacity-building outcomes
7.4 Tiered Procurement Framework
- Create opportunities for small, medium, and large firms
- Match project complexity with firm capability
7.5 Strengthening Policy Direction
- Establish clear national policy on local content in engineering services
- Align procurement practices with long-term development objectives
8. Conclusion
The Revitalization Programme represents a rare and valuable opportunity to reshape not only the physical infrastructure of Trinidad and Tobago but also the institutional and professional capacity that underpins sustainable development.
However, procurement is policy in action. The decision to award consultancy services for multiple major projects to a single entity is fundamentally misaligned with the objective of building local engineering capacity.
If development is to be truly sustainable, it must be understood as a dual process:
- The creation of infrastructure, and
- The strengthening of the people and institutions that design, deliver, and maintain it
Without deliberate intervention, Trinidad and Tobago risks continuing along a path of dependency rather than development.
The choice is clear: Procurement can either be a tool for national capacity building—or an instrument of its erosion.