Is ‘open Request for Proposal’ an open tender?

In today’s interview with Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow, the BFM interviewer asked about the allegation that the Request for Proposal (RFP) used to award the Penang Transport Master Plan was not an open tender.

It is very unfortunate that such misinformation is being propagated by certain NGOs and critics against the project.

The chief minister has rightly replied that the RFP used for the project was “an open tender by any definition.”

There are several types of open tender. Each type is employed according to the scale and limitation of the project.

Let’s say you are hungry and desire a burger. Regular open tender is like going to the pasar malam and coming back with the cheapest burger.

RFP on the other hand is like holding a contest, and inviting all the pasar malam burger stalls to participate. The stall that makes the tastiest burger and at the best price — but not necessarily the cheapest — gets the prize.

The main difference between the two is that price is the primary consideration in a regular open tender whereas other factors come into play in RFP.

RFP allows bidders to offer their own proposals, with room for innovation. This tendering method was first employed by the Penang state government in 2010 to develop landmark and restore heritage sites.

Goh Ban Lee, a former associate professor at Universiti Sains Malaysia, has this to say about RFP:

“I find the RFP idea very refreshing and interesting. If it is left to state planners or architects, it will only be one design. Generally, planners working in the civil service, as government officers, follow the normal procedures and plans and rarely take risks.

“However, by opening it up to the private sector, it will provide a myriad of ideas and, with competition, the bidders strive to give their best shot — and the sky is the limit to their innovation... This is new thinking, it... gives the state government the pick of the best proposals. Ultimately, the state government decides and picks on the best options offered.”

RFP can be either closed or open. Closed RFP is like holding a contest where you only invite one burger stall to participate. No need to guess who’s the winner. No alternative to be considered or compared.

Open RFP, on the other hand, is an invitation to anyone in the market to bid or tender for the job. It is competitive, as the submitted proposals will be evaluated with alternatives.

World Bank uses open RFP for its global meetings, management programs, data centre, digital entrepreneurship, and many others.

Open RFP is sometimes used interchangeably with the phrase “open tender” by other international institutions such as the United Nations (UN). In UN’s Development Programme’s procurement notice, “open tender” is bracketed as “RFP.”

“Open request for proposal tender” is similarly employed by a Queensland government's project and the National University of Singapore Society. (See attached photo)

Whether it is Penang Transport Master Plan, World Bank, UN, Australia, or Singapore, open RFP is internationally recognised as open tender.

Penang state government employed open RFP for Penang Transport Master Plan to look for the Project Delivery Partner. Fifty-five local and overseas companies expressed interest, with six submitting proposals through the open RFP.

The consultancy and audit firm KPMG was appointed to provide independent evaluation of the six proposals for their technical expertise and funding model. The delivery partner was appointed based on the evaluation and recommendation.

As the chief minister said, this is by any definition an open tender.

A grateful letter to Yoga Adiwinarto of ITDP

Dear Yoga,

I have read your suggestions on how to improve public mobility in Penang.  There is much to agree with you as your suggestions cohere with much of what is already happening here.

For example, your advice that Penang “should start by investing in pedestrian facilities as well as cycling infrastructure,” reflects what the local councils and state government have already been doing for years.

Back in 2014, the state government has launched a RM30 million bicycle lane project. Two years ago, through partnership with private sector, the bicycle-sharing services LinkBike was started, with 250 bicycles achieving up to 3,500 ridership per month.

The state government has recently initiated RM40 million Ecodeck project that will build lanes that measure 3.5m in width, with 2m and 1.5m designated for bicycles and pedestrians respectively. The current 180 km of cycling lane in Penang will be further expanded to 200 km.

In terms of pedestrian walkway, it is estimated that there is 80% pedestrian infrastructure in the city centre. In 2017, the local council allocated RM2.5 million for 14 walkway improvement projects, with another RM2.4 million for a collaboration with Think City to build pedestrian-friendly public space.

Besides those projects, the local government is working on two business improvement district schemes (BIDS) to expand walkability in the surrounding areas of KOMTAR and the nearby “seven-street district.”  In addition to these, a 50 km coastal park and 65 km of cycling lane are in the pipeline.

There is of course still much to be done in the city, not least in the suburbs. The point is that the local authorities are already working on them. Your suggestions show that the governments are right on track.

With regards to the “BRT vs LRT” debate, you have rightly noted that “the development of LRT, tram and BRT should go hand in hand and well integrated with the improvement of the Rapid Penang bus system.”

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. I and others have highlighted this matter many times for many months, through official and informal channels. The state government also shares this multidimensional approach.

A local group that needs to hear this from you is ‘Penang Forum’. The group has been lobbying against this integrated plan by opposing the LRT plan for a BRT and tram only public transport on the island. I believe you are acquainted with them, and should share your thoughts with them if you haven’t.

As for the Penang Transport Master Plan, the state government would require BRT-experts like your good self to advise on the BRT plan on the mainland. Till then, wish you the best in your BRT business in Jakarta and this region.

Best regards,
Joshua Woo

BRT expert sweet-talking Penang to install bus system?

It was reported that Yoga Adiwinarto, country director of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) in Jakarta had recommended the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system for Penang in a presentation organised by Think City yesterday.

The ITDP specialises in BRT and their institutional mission is to promote the bus system around the world in that their “specific area of expertise is the bus rapid transit (BRT) and we work to spread knowledge about BRT and provide high-level technical assistance to cities pursuing BRT projects in the US and abroad.”

Urban planning expert, Diego Silva Ardila has observed that think-tanks like ITDP “have focused on BRT systems as the only plausible solution for urban transport in the developing world, and have not seriously and rigorously analysed the possibilities that rail-based systems have [...]”

Ardila further noted that “the think-tanks and their claims have been deemed biased by the fact that they represented the interests of funding sources and donors of these think-tanks, mostly foundations of companies related to a certain level with the automobile and oil industry.”

Matteo Rizzo, development studies expert in the University of London, calls the ITDP and similar institutions the “BRT evangelical society” for their fervency in recommending the BRT for developing countries. It is an established fact among field experts that ITDP’s sole option for public transport is the BRT.

In his presentation yesterday, Yoga reportedly hailed the BRT as the “best system to graduate to larger rail systems”. Yoga mentioned, if I recall correctly, that the installation of the BRT took lesser time and Penang needed such a system to address immediate traffic needs before moving on to constructing a rail-based system like the Light Rail Transit (LRT).

His remark that the BRT should be an intermediary system before graduating to LRT sounded odd as he disagreed with such a graduation process in Jakarta. Yoga is reported to prefer to expand the TransJakarta BRT system rather than supporting the LRT plan.

His preference was in contrast to Jakarta's deputy governor-in-charge of transportation, Sutanto Soehodho, a  former professor of transport modelling with a doctorate from the University of Tokyo, who thought that the city required an LRT.

On ITDP, the deputy governor said that, “They have been monitoring our TransJakarta buses for 10 years and they are not getting better. The number of passengers is even declining.”

This had me wondering that if after the installation of the BRT, will Yoga really support graduation to an LRT? After all, he is the head of an institution with the mission to evangelise BRT to the world and his past record shows that he disagreed with such a plan. Was he merely sweet-talking the audience into supporting the BRT?

Besides, I do not remember an instance when Yoga highlighted the limitations and weaknesses of the BRT compared to other public transport systems.

Each public transport system has merits and weaknesses. One weakness of the BRT is that it is accident-prone. TransJakarta, even with its dedicated lanes, has seen increasing road accidents. Here is the data from 2015 to 2018.

In four years, there were 134 percent and 233 percent increase of BRT-related accidents and deaths respectively. A public transport system like the LRT plan for Penang will not have such risks. And none of these was highlighted in Yoga’s presentation.

Such silence over BRT’s weaknesses is not surprising to researchers like Matteo Rizzo who wrote that, “the narrative of BRT as a ‘win–win’ intervention to solve the public transport crisis in developing countries obscures the many tensions associated with their implementation.”

Rizzo further postulated that, “Such a narrative stems from research sponsored by international finance, its NGO brokers and BRT vehicle manufacturers and is functional to their interests in opening up public transport markets in developing countries.” (Matteo Rizzo, Taken For A Ride, Oxford University Press, 170)

Perhaps the ITDP should consider changing their name to “Institute for BRT and Development Policy” in order not to give the wrong impression to the public that they are public transport experts when their expertise is solely the BRT system?

Now that we have heard from BRT expert, it will be good if we can also hear from experts of other modes. Hopefully, Think City will consider having sessions on other types of public transport.

Cities need complementary public transport system

Planning public transportation for a city with population of 10 million, the government of Jakarta knew that they needed more than the TransJakarta Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). That's why they are currently building Light-Rail Transit (LRT) and Mass Rapid Transit (MRT).

The advocates for buses such as the Institute of Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) disagreed with rail-based system. They preferred to have the BRT system be expanded with more buses and routes with better services.

Jakarta's deputy governor in-charge of transportation, Sutanto Soehodho (former professor of transport modelling at University of Indonesia with doctorate from University of Tokyo) thought that the city required a complementary network of bus-based and rail-based system.

On ITDP, Sutanto said, "They have been monitoring our Transjakarta buses for 10 years and they are not getting better. The number of passengers is even declining."

Each public transport system has merits and weaknesses. One weakness of BRT is that it is accident-prone. TransJakarta, even with its dedicated lanes, has seen increasing road accidents. Here are the data from 2015 to 2018:

TransJakarta-related Incidents	2015	2016	2017	2018 (until Nov)
Accidents	23	96	43	54
Deaths	3	7	5	10

In four years, there were 134% and 233% increase of BRT-related accidents and deaths respectively. It is therefore not wrong for Jakarta to build other system as safer alternative for the public, instead of expanding the BRT.

Think tanks such as ITDP has exclusive preference for bus-based transit, and this is rather unusual. The organisation's self-description states that their "primary programs include the development of bus rapid transit (BRT)".

Urban planning expert, Diego Silva Ardila has observed that these think tanks "have focused on BRT systems as the only plausible solution for urban transport in the developing world, and have not seriously and rigorously analyzed the possibilities that rail-based systems have in high-demand corridors in the intervened urban agglomerations."

This has led Diego to note that "the think tanks and their claims have been deemed biased by the fact that they represented the interests of funding sources and donors of these think tanks, mostly foundations of companies related to certain level with the automobile and oil industry."

Development studies expert, Matteo Rizzo in his research on BRT has made similar observation, that "the narrative of BRT, as a ‘win–win’ intervention to solve the public transport crisis in developing countries, obscures the many tensions associated with their implementation. Such a narrative stems from research sponsored by international finance, its NGO brokers, and BRT vehicle manufacturers, and is functional to their interests in opening up public transport markets in developing countries." (Matteo Rizzo, Taken For A Ride, Oxford University Press, 170)

A city's public transport should be a network of several systems complementing each other to leverage on different merits and closes the gap of weaknesses. That is the approach adopted by Penang Transport Master Plan with various types of systems working together.

As to why there are think tanks that advocate only one type of system is anyone's guess.

ART still lacks proven track record

My previous article posits seven reasons why Light-Rail Transit (LRT) beats Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART) as better public transport for Penang. Lim Mah Hui and Jackie Moey have written responses that I wish to engage as my contribution to the on-going public discourse on this matter.  Regrettably, I can only address the more repeated counterpoints to keep this reply brief.

Ambiguous ART

The 12th InnoTrans – the world’s largest rail industry fair – was held at Berlin in September last year. There were 3,062 exhibitors from 61 countries, with more than 400 rail-related innovations displayed.  Industrial giants showcase their most advanced, top technology at InnoTrans. And curiously, the ART was not there.

CRRC, the maker of ART, had an elaborate booth and launched their track-based train Cetrovo at InnoTrans, but nowhere was the trackless ART seen.  This has prompted internationally-renowned public transport expert Graham Currie to wonder, “Why would they not bring that along?” 

To many in the industry, the ART is basically a tram that moves on tyres, like a bus. The founding director of the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at University of Sydney, David Hensher calls the ART a “BRT system.” To him, the branding of ART as “trackless tram” is a “clever use” to give “emotional attachment” to tram, while it is practically a bus. 

This is not surprising as the label “Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit” is also a reference used by CRRC for self-driving bus. (See screenshot below) 

The ambiguous ART has also been examined by other transport experts. Public transport researcher Zhuxiao Wong had written to “debunk some misconceptions” about the ART, responding to inflated claims and potentials of the technology. Wong’s list of misconceptions about the ART are the claims that it is a “revolutionary technology,” “have better ride quality,” and a “game-changing” system.

After considering the ART, the New South Wales government is of the view that it is an “untested technology” and not a “viable option” for mass public transport.  Graham Currie, who wonders over the absence of ART at InnoTrans, says that the information about ART is “speculative data” that needs another 10 years of test to ascertain its feasibility.  In other words, the ART still lacks of track record.

Unlike the LRT, a transit system being used in many parts of the world and tested through time, the ART has not achieved consensus among transport experts as a viable option. Urban mobility expert from University of Adelaide, Jennifer Bonham is cautious to recommend ART just because it is cheap, “I certainly wouldn’t invest straight away based on the cost savings because they are still only assumptions.”

Despite its ambiguity, proponents of ART insist that the state government should buy the unproven system for Penang – treating the rest of us as guinea pigs for their “emotional attachment” to tram?

Diversion from on-ground public transport risk

Lim and Jackie have raised question over the construction of highway in view of road accidents. They state that the concern for accidents should stop new highway from being built, as there are more accidents on the road than accidents caused by bus and tram.  This is nothing but a diversion.

The main issue is deciding among modes of public transport system for Penang, not deciding between public transport system and building roads. As shown previously, LRT has the least risk compares to BRT and ART, and therefore it is a safer public transport mode.

Bringing in statistics of road accidents does not make LRT more accident-prone than BRT and ART. Neither does it make BRT and ART less accident-prone. The fact remains that LRT is safer than the other two as it has zero chances of colliding with road vehicles. In fact, it gives us more reason to abandon BRT and ART precisely because they use roads which is accident-prone.

Diversion is neither constructive nor illuminating. We should keep to the topic when discussing which mode of public transport should be implemented, and not divert to other things such as the pros and cons of building highway.

When being revealed the disadvantages of one’s preferred mode of public transport, one should explain or make counter-claim over the revelation. Diverting to other topic is a desperate attempt to dismiss the revelation.

Free up road space?

Lim and others often claim that bus and tram free up road space. Public transport – be it LRT, BRT, or ART – does not free up road space. It is private car users who free up road space when they do not use their vehicle.

Likewise, bus or tram system with dedicated lane does not take away cars from roads too. They take away roads.

Taking away roads from the current condition of 97% private car usage will only frustrate private car users and also bus and tram users as their journey are disrupted by intersection, junctions, and pedestrian crossings. One just need to visit Kota Tua in Jakarta to experience this.

Doesn’t LRT elevated track take up road space too? That depends on the alignment design, where to build the supporting beams with minimal reduction of road space. This option is not available for dedicated bus/tram lane unless new roads are built.

Besides, I cannot see how is choking the 97% of current road users being democratic and fair, as believed by Lim. He wrote that, “Road space should be shared with all users – public transport, cyclists and pedestrians.” As far as I know, there is no banning of buses, cyclists and pedestrians from using the roads.

It is undeniable that certain roads are user-friendlier to one group than others, yet to write as if bus passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians are banned from using the roads is rhetorical rather than factual. Besides, if most road users are private car users, then the most democratic way is to allocate more space for them, since 97% is by any count very representative of the people.

Any policy change to public mobility should therefore take very serious consideration of the plight of the 97%. The focus of public mobility should be to educate and encourage. Not by choking the traffic to force private vehicle users to use public transport, which is authoritarian.

Better mobile option with least traffic disruption, more comfortable ride experience, and safer mode of transportation must be made available to incentivise more private vehicle users to free up road space.

That option was definitely not the one missing at InnoTrans 2018.

7 reasons why LRT plan in Penang beats BRT and ART

Since the Light-Rail Transit (LRT) project in Penang was first unveiled in 2015, a small group of people have objected against it. Although the objections have been addressed at numerous occasions, they are still being used at various outlet and season. Latest being Lim Mah Hui’s article “Proposed LRT in Penang is both too early and too late.”

There are two alternatives suggested to replace the LRT plan. First, the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and second, the Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART). In this article, I want to point out seven reasons why the LRT is better than BRT and ART.

My focus will be on the proposed Bayan Lepas to Komtar LRT alignment and not the comprehensive network covering whole of Penang.

Reason 1 – LRT is safer for commuters and road users

By being elevated, without sharing the same road with other vehicles, the LRT has no chance of colliding with other vehicles and road users.

Having to share road, the BRT and ART have high chances of collision.  Even with dedicated lane, they are still sharing junction, intersection, and pedestrian crossing, where accident is waiting to happen.

Reason 2 – LRT is more comfortable for commuters

Anyone who has taken the bus and the LRT will know the different comfort level for both. The bus is jerky and bumpy, while the LRT is not perfect but it is much more comfortable.

To test this, one can try reading a book in the bus and in the LRT. We can often readily read a book in LRT, but not in a bus. Why? It is because the LRT’s acceleration and brake are much more predictable and managed compared to the BRT and ART that are more chaotic as they same road space with other vehicles and road users.

Reason 3 – LRT provides smooth journey, unaffected by road accident

Just today, a lorry that has overturned on Penang Bridge blocked two lanes off the three-lane road. The congestion was horrendous as vehicles from three lanes were squeezing into the remaining lane.

If a BRT or ART meets a similar situation, it will get stuck in the congestion like other vehicles. It will be worse if an accident has blocked the opening of the dedicated lane of the BRT or ART, their service has to be completely stopped until the obstacle removed. LRT on its own elevated track will not have such problem.

Reason 4 – LRT does not cause other vehicles to emit more CO2

Giving priority for the right of way for BRT and ART at junction and intersection will cause other vehicles to spend more time on the road. This will increase their carbon footprint.

LRT does not need the right of way as it moves on elevated track, and therefore does not require vehicles to spend more time on the road, thus does not leads to the increase of CO2 production.

Reason 5 – Adding carriages to LRT does not affect road users

As the LRT moves on elevated track, the adding of more carriage to the train to increase its passenger capacity will not disrupt road users.

Using articulated vehicles to increase passenger capacity for BRT and ART poses high risk for accident with other road users. That is the reason why articulated buses in London (known as bendy bus) were replaced after they were found to be involved in 75% more accident than regular buses.  It is estimated that the articulated vehicle comprised only 5% of London’s buses but involved in 20% of all bus-related deaths.

In other words, LRT is still safe with the increment of passenger capacity, but the same cannot be said of the BRT and ART.

Reason 6 – LRT station’s high benefit for the public

Being big and elevated, the LRT stations are much conducive as a shelter for pedestrians and cyclists during raining season. This is an advantage to the public that cannot be overlooked for a place with tropical climate like Penang.

A step further, LRT stations can be used as emergency shelter too. Countries such as Singapore even build their MRT stations as crisis or bomb shelter equipped with “protective blast doors, decontamination facilities, ventilation system, power and water supply systems and dry toilet system.” The potential for LRT stations be utilised as emergency shelter (e.g. relief centers during flood or disaster, crisis gathering points, etc) is there and should be explored.

It is uncommon to have big station for BRT and ART that are on the ground as the space is constrained. Their station has lesser capacity as a shelter, limited in public benefit.

Reason 7 – LRT upholds people’s democratic rights to choose

Finally, the LRT plan provides an alternative mode of transport for people to choose from, instead of forcing them to stop using their private vehicle.

The BRT and ART requires the closure of at least one lane for their dedicated use. This will take away road space and worsen congestion which then makes driving unbearable. BRT and ART would create such a stressful condition that pressures people to abandon their private car and use them

LRT does not crowd into the current roads like the BRT and ART. The LRT plan does not pressure people with more congestion stress. The LRT gives people choices to choose from, as that is a mark of democracy.

When it comes to improving mobility, a good policy educates, a bad one coerces. Surprising that the opposers of the LRT plan would resort to authoritarianism to coerce people to use public transport.

The proponent of BRT and ART may argue that the LRT is more expensive to be built and operated. That may or may not be true, depending on how much land acquisition was needed.

Nonetheless, what is certain is that the seven reasons above have shown how much better the LRT is compared to the other two suggestions. Cost is important but it is not all that matters.

Safety, comfort, smooth journey, carbon footprint, ability to increase capacity, public benefits, and democratic rights are likewise important. Why would anyone want a cheap transit system that is dangerous, uncomfortable, with disruptive journey, produces more carbon footprint, cannot increase capacity, with limited benefits, and coercive?

Give us the LRT please.

The rule of thumb for religious ethics

Someone named Publicola wrote to the great Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, asking: If a Christian is starving and on the point of death, and they see food in an idol’s temple, may they eat it?

Augustine replied: ‘It is better to reject it with Christian fortitude’.

This same Augustine who wrote the magisterial City of God was also the one who penned:

‘That all superstition of pagans and heathens should be annihilated is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims!’

As we compare Augustine to some of today's well-known leaders of religions, we can notice the same worldview that leads to extremism.

We humans have natural tendency to create imaginary divine laws.

How often we hear religious teachers say, "This is God's laws, we must follow out of gratitude"?

Perhaps the rule of thumb to discern what is divine or not is whether the rule celebrates tangible signs of human flourishing such as life, joy, friendship, self-responsibility and social bond.

Dying from starvation by rejecting available food is against the celebration of life.

Annihilating other widely accepted religious beliefs is against the celebration of joy and friendship.

Extremism that raises racial or religious wall to separate people is against healthy social bond.

As Kenan Malik observes: "Moral questions may not have objective answer but they do have rational ones, answers rooted in a rationality that emerges out of social need."

Doctrines and religious teachings have to be thought through this rule of thumb. If not, one would go down the path of extremism like what is happening around today.

How this rule is connected to divinity is up to each religion's interpretation.

The point is that, this rule of thumb at least sets the boundary where teachings that are outside of it is probably not divine.

I can't imagine a divine commandment in the present era that requires people to go against life, joy, friendship, self-responsibility and social bond. 

Contemporary books introducing any particular global religion testify to this. They assume this rule of thumb and condemn extremism or fanatical interpretation of that religion. True version of their religion, they say, is against death, despair, enmity, self-recklessness and disintegrate society. They all promote their respective religion as celebrating the rule of thumb.

Request For Proposal differentiates PTMP from other mega projects

There are some misconceptions that the PTMP is the same as other mega projects that should be reviewed, if not cancelled. Some have even lobbied all the way to the Prime Minister Office and the Council of Eminent Persons against PTMP.

These misconceptions are based on the wrong understanding about PTMP. It is therefore important for the public to know the uniqueness of PTMP in order to discern properly.

What sets the PTMP apart from other mega projects is the use of an open tender process known as Request For Proposal (RFP). The RFP is a type of open tender that allows for competitive evaluation among different innovative proposals before a decision is made.

The RFP differentiates PTMP from other projects, such as the RM81 billion East Coast Rail Link (ECRL), that do not use open tender. 

Regular open tender and RFP

There are several types of open tender. Each type is employed according to the scale and limitation of the project. I will only elaborate on the tender processes related to PTMP.

Let's say you are hungry and desire for a burger. Regular open tender is like going to the pasar malam and coming back with the cheapest burger.

RFP on the other hand is like holding a contest, and inviting all the pasar malam burger stalls to participate. The stall that makes the tastiest burger and at the best price - but not necessarily the cheapest - gets the prize.

The main difference between the two is that price is the primary consideration in regular open tender whereas other factors come into play in RFP.

RFP allows bidders to offer their own proposal, with room for innovation. This tendering method was first employed by Penang state government in 2010 to develop landmark and restore heritage sites.

Goh Ban Lee, a former associate professor at Universiti Sains Malaysia, has this to say about RFP:

“I find the RFP idea very refreshing and interesting. If it is left to state planners or architects, it will only be one design. Generally, planners working in the civil service, as government officers, follow the normal procedures and plans and rarely take risks. However, by opening it up to the private sector, it will provide a myriad of ideas and, with competition, the bidders strive to give their best shot — and the sky is the limit to their innovation... This is new thinking, it... gives the state government the pick of the best proposals. Ultimately, the state government decides and picks on the best options offered.”

Closed and open RFP

RFP can be either closed or open. Closed RFP is like holding a contest where you only invite one burger stall to participate.  No need to guess who's the winner. No alternative to be considered or compared.

Open RFP, on the other hand, is an invitation to any one in the market to bid or tender for the job. It is competitive, as the submitted proposals will be evaluated with alternative.

Double open RFP for PTMP

Penang state government employed open RFP twice for PTMP. Let's call this double open RFP.

Double open RFP is like, you want to open a restaurant, but first you hold a contest to choose a restaurant consultant to advise you what food to serve. Say the winning consultant's choice is burger. Next you hold a second contest to choose the chef who can prepare the best burger.

For PTMP, the first open RFP was conducted to appoint a consultant to prepare an initial study of building an integrated transport infrastructure in Penang. Many criteria were set, one of which is that the project has to have a funding mechanism.

The first open RFP began on 12 March 2010 and ended on 30 April 2010. There were six companies that applied. They were AECOM Perunding Sdn Bhd, Melewar Metro Penang Sdn Bhd, Jurutera Zaaba Sdn Bhd, Systra MVA Singapore Pte Ltd, Perunding Trafik Klasik Sdn Bhd, and AJC Planning Consultants Sdn Bhd.

On 27 April 2011, the RM3.2 million project was awarded to AJC Planning Consultants Sdn Bhd, which was set up by Halcrow, Singapore Cruise Centre, and AJC. The cost was shared between the Northern Corridor Implementation Authority (NCIA) and Penang state government at RM1.5 million and RM1.7 million respectively. The consultant produced a recommendation with estimated cost of RM27 billion.

The second open RFP was carried out from 15 August 2014 to 16 December 2014, and was then extended to February 2015, looking for the Project Delivery Partner (PDP) to implement PTMP. 

Fifty-five local and overseas companies expressed interest, with six submitted proposal through the open RFP. Among them were Gamuda, IJM Corp, MMC Corp Bhd, Scomi Group Bhd, and WCT. The consultancy and audit firm KPMG was appointed to provide independent evaluation of the six proposals for their technical expertise and funding model. 

Based on KPMG's evaluation, on 14 August 2015, SRS Consortium (formed by Gamuda, Loh Phoy Yen Holdings, and Ideal Property Development) was appointed as the PDP.

SRS Consortium was selected after it went through the competitive open RFP.

Open RFP is internationally recognised as open tender

Despite the open and transparent nature of the RFP used in PTMP, there are deliberate allegations stating that the RFP is not open tender.

For example, Lim Mah Hui and Ahmad Hilmy wrote that, “In RFP, bidders are not placed on a level playing field. The criteria for bidding under the RFP are not transparent or necessarily consistent. Clearly, RFPs are not open tenders...”

They also argued that “the best way to evaluate open tenders is for a government to follow the guidelines established by the World Bank,” implying that the World Bank does not practice RFP.

They are mistaken. As mentioned above, the RFP used in PTMP is open tender. Moreover, World Bank itself uses RFP and even has its own standard guidelines for RFP. This method is used by World Bank for its global meetings management programs, data center, digital entrepreneurship, and many others.

Open RFP is sometimes used interchangeably with open tender by other international institutions such as the United Nations. In the United Nations Development Programme's procurement notice, “open tender” is bracketed as “RFP.” (See the photo below.)

"Open request for proposal tender" is similarly employed by a Queensland government's project and the National University of Singapore Society.
 

Whether it is Penang's PTMP, World Bank's guidelines, United Nations' procurement notices, Australia's project, or Singapore's institution, open RFP is internationally recognised as open tender.

Lim and Ahmad have therefore misinformed the public. Their misinformation has been taken up and disseminated by others such as the Consumers Association of Penang.

Both Lim and Ahmad may have preferred the regular open tender over against open RFP because of their concern for the cost. They want the cheapest transport infrastructure. But given our local road condition, geography, socioeconomic outlook, and other considerations, the cheapest is not necessarily the best for Penang.

Neither is the most expensive proposal the best. Therefore, the open RFP was necessary to enable the state government to evaluate different proposals with different estimated cost and suggestion, based on independent review, to decide the best for Penang.

As a competitive and transparent tendering process, open RFP allows for innovative solution at a reasonable cost. This sets apart PTMP from other mega projects.

Light Rail Transit is safer than on-ground tram

The Penang state government has adopted an elevated Light Rail Transit (LRT) system instead of an on-ground tram system for the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP).

One of the reasons the state government abandoned the previously proposed on-ground tram system is that it poses a danger to other road users, pedestrians and infrastructure.

Statistics from the Australian Transport Safety Victoria record a rise in incidents of tram collisions involving people, infrastructure and road vehicles of 85%, 175% and 17% respectively over the past five years from 2013 to 2017.

In that period, 192 people were hurt, 40 structures were damaged and 4,445 vehicles crashed.

Accidents happen due to various causes. But banning all privately owned cars from the roads is utterly impractical. No credible government in the world has attempted that.

While governments should constantly improve road safety for private car users, they should also build a public transport infrastructure which has the least danger of accidents occurring. Thousands of people use public transport every day. Safety is non-negotiable. A responsible government must take this into consideration when choosing which public transport system to build.

It is therefore surprising that highly educated individuals would lobby and write a series of articles demanding that the Penang government replace the elevated LRT with trams.

One of them who is pursuing doctorate even bizarrely compared the safety of a mode of public transport (tram) to a highway. That is like comparing the safety of an escalator (a type of lift) to that of a building. I am not sure what conclusion should be made from it, so if an escalator (or tram) is safer, then we should just build an escalator and not build the building (or highway)?

It is even more surprising that there are local councilors, responsible for ensuring the well-being of the people, would persuade the state government to implement on-ground tram and stir up public opinion towards public transport system which poses more risk to the people.

If the Transport Safety Victoria statistics on tram collisions are of any indication, the PTMP’s elevated LRT would pose less risk to the public than an on-ground tram system.

When choosing a public transport system, we need to evaluate cost, feasibility, foreseeable risk, public safety and other factors to reach the best balance. Public safety is an essential factor that should not be compromised.

A government that willingly spends RM8.4 billion on a safer transport system for the people is better and more responsible than one that spends less but builds a riskier system that endangers the public.