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)
Introduction: Engineering Capacity as a Foundation for Development
Engineering capacity building refers to deliberate initiatives that enhance the skills, knowledge, and abilities of engineers. Its pillars—education, training, mentoring, and meaningful work opportunities—form the foundation for a nation’s technological self-reliance.
A strong engineering base drives national development for two key reasons.
- It enables the creation and maintenance of high-quality, globally competitive engineering capability.
- It strengthens our indigenous ability to meet national development objectives sustainably and efficiently.
For Trinidad and Tobago (T&T), the development of local engineering capacity is not optional—it is critical to long-term economic, environmental, and social resilience.
The Role and Relevance of Engineering
Engineering is central to progress, yet in many developing countries, including T&T, the role of the engineer is often misunderstood, underappreciated, and underutilized. Unlike professions such as medicine or law, engineers rarely engage directly with the public, even though their work profoundly shapes daily life—from infrastructure and utilities to industrial and communication systems.
Development, therefore, must be understood not merely as the construction of physical assets, but as a process of building local capability—the sustained improvement of our collective quality of life through the deepening of our engineering competence.
The State of Engineering Capacity in Trinidad and Tobago
T&T has benefited from over fifty years of accredited engineering education through the University of the West Indies (UWI), home to the Caribbean’s premier engineering faculty and mote recently through the University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT). As a result, the country possesses a large cadre of trained engineers and an available pool of technical talent.
However, the transition from education to professional development has been weak. Opportunities for practical training, mentorship, and sustained engineering practice have declined significantly. Unlike other sectors, there has been no coherent state policy or incentive to nurture the local engineering consultancy industry—the primary engine of applied engineering technology, experience and innovation.
In earlier decades, T&T saw the steady growth of private consulting engineering firms, some employing 20 to 30 engineers each. These firms provided critical professional grounding for generations of young engineers. Today, many have either downsized drastically or disappeared altogether.
This decline is not merely a by-product of economic challenges—it reflects a deeper structural issue in how public infrastructure projects are procured and executed.
The Rise of the Design-Build Procurement Model
The design-build method, where a single entity assumes responsibility for both design and construction, has gained widespread adoption in the local public sector. In theory, it offers efficiency and accountability—objectives that are legitimate and valuable.
However, in T&T, the model has been misapplied and over-relied upon, with far-reaching consequences for engineering capacity development.
In mature economies, design-build thrives because large firms possess integrated design and construction capabilities. Their in-house engineering departments are well-resourced, ensuring that design remains central to innovation and quality.
In contrast, no major local contractor in T&T maintains in-house engineering design capacity of comparable strength. Consequently, when invited to bid on design-build projects, contractors often subcontract the design component to external engineers or firms—usually on speculative terms.
The Hidden Cost of “Tender Engineering”
In practice, the design-build model has led to a costly and inefficient phenomenon: “tender engineering.”
Multiple engineers or firms expend valuable time and resources developing preliminary designs for a contractor’s bid—without compensation and with a low probability of selection.
This process not only wastes scarce engineering resources but also discourages qualified professionals from participating. Many engineers now refuse such engagements, recognizing that it is an unsustainable drain on professional capacity.
The result?
- Fewer firms engage in meaningful design work.
- Young engineers lose opportunities for training and mentorship.
- Engineering design itself becomes marginalized, replaced by project management or administrative oversight roles.
The design-build “frenzy” has thus unintentionally eroded the foundation of indigenous engineering development in T&T.
Consequences for the Profession and the Nation
The near-exclusive preference for design-build procurement has decimated the consulting engineering industry—a vital national resource for technological innovation and technical leadership.
Today, many young graduates gravitate toward project management rather than engineering design, perceiving it as more financially secure and better aligned with market opportunities. The ability of many engineering firms to employ interns and graduates has sharply diminished, even as applications continue to flood in.
This trend represents a critical loss of national potential. Without a robust consulting engineering base, T&T risks dependency on foreign expertise, reduced local value creation, and a steady decline in technical self-sufficiency.
Rethinking Procurement for Sustainable Capacity
Public procurement strategies should not only aim for cost and speed but also promote knowledge transfer and capacity building. A more balanced approach is needed—one that reintroduces traditional design-bid-build and construction management models alongside design-build, depending on project objectives and complexity.
By doing so, the State can:
- Reinforce the role of local engineering firms in planning and design;
- Provide meaningful professional engagement for engineers at all levels;
- Encourage mentorship, innovation, and sustainable skill development;
- Stimulate the growth of a globally competitive, knowledge-based consulting industry.
Engineering is not merely a support service—it is a strategic national capability. To neglect it is to compromise the quality, resilience, and sustainability of our built environment.
Conclusion: Building the Future from Within
If Trinidad and Tobago is to achieve sustainable development, it must recognize that engineering capacity is both a driver and a measure of progress.
The design-build procurement model, as currently practiced, offers efficiency but undermines long-term professional growth. A deliberate policy shift is therefore required—one that values engineering design as a national investment, not a cost to be minimized.
Only by rebuilding our indigenous engineering capability can we ensure that our infrastructure, industries, and communities are built not just for today’s needs, but by the hands and minds capable of shaping tomorrow.