Extreme Complaints Drove the Bid to the Exception

Extreme Complaints Drove the Bid to the Exception
By: Hacer Boyacioğlu
Radikal Volume 17, Number 6143, 20 August 2013, pages 22-23

The bid for the Sincan-Ankara-Kayaş railway line was cancelled and will be exempted from the Bidding Law after firms used that law to enter complaints against each other.

In a recent meeting State Railways General Director Süleyman Karaman, when discussing the bidding on Capital Rail, stated that, the process "turned like a top."

The Turkish State Railway Authority (TCDD) chose a rare precautionary method to speed the bidding on the half-a-billion lira Sincan-Ankara-Kayaş railway line project after all of the firms bidding entered complaints against each other. Seventeen firms entered proposals for the bidding which opened last year and four of them were found to be qualified. It was at this point that a fury of complaints began. Firms participating in the bidding process began to enter complaints against each other. After large firms such as Makyol-Cengiz, Gülermak-Kolin, Porr Bau and Comsa Sa-Seza-Açılım used the complaints process nine times, the bidding was cancelled. The State Railway Authority will initiate the bidding again. Yes, this time with a check on complaints and with foreign funding. With a foreign funding source the project bidding will be exempted from the Public Bidding Law.

Everyone Ran to the KIK
The Sincan-Ankara-Kayaş railway line project, known as Capital Rail, was opened for bidding last year on 25 April. Gülermak-Kolin was chosen as the winning bid and Porr Bau GmbH was the runner up bidder. This decision initiated serious objections that continued over a years time. Firstly Porr Bau Gmgh objected and claimed that Gülermak-Kolin should have been removed from the bidding process; the committee rejected this objection. Immediately thereafter Öz Aras Intekar Yapı and afterward Comsa Sa-Açılım-Seza Construction complained that the winning firm at Porr Bau should be banned from the bidding process.The Public Bidding Committee (KIK) decided that the complainant Comsa Sa-Açılım-Seza should be removed from the bidding process, but that Makyol-Cengiz would be free to continue.

The committee re-evaluated the proposals on August 10 and again chose the Gülermak-Kolin bid to qualify as the winning bid. Before this decision was made 6 of the firms had applied for their competing companies to be excluded from bidding. Following each of the decisions made by the KIK the relevant firms had opened lawsuits relating to the decisions. The KIK as well had started counter legal action against a number of the firms involved. By April 3 the KIK made the decision to cancel the entire bidding process. By this time the TCDD had already taken the decision to finance the project using the foreign funding model. The TCDD stated that “This time financing from the European Investment Bank will be used. It will be a quicker and shorter process than that of the complaint-driven model.”

Shocking Engineering Report on the Third Bridge

Shocking Engineering Report on the Third Bridge
By: Serkan Ocak
Radikal Volume 17, Number 6140, 17 August 2013, pages 4-5


The expert committee report used by TEMA in its legal case against the Third Bridge has been released two month after the bridge’s foundation has been laid. The report states that “if development is not allowed in the area around the bridge, then there will not be exaggerated environmental damage. If the bridge is not constructed it may lead to more pollution.”


There are currently about 30 legal cases pending against the Third Bridge. Among these, TEMA is the complainant in two. For one of TEMA’s cases an expert committee report was issued. According to the report “if development is not allowed in the area around the bridge, then there will not be exaggerated environmental damage... If the bridge is not constructed it may lead to more pollution… If the bridge is not constructed it may lead to more traffic in existing neighbourhoods and cause more pollution.”


Of the seven experts who authored the report, six of them supported the Third Bridge. One member of the committee of experts did not support the Third Bridge because of the risk presented by uncontrolled development in the study area. Surprisingly the committee’s report supports the position of the defendants, the Istanbul Municipality & the Highway Authority.


Foundation in May, Report in July


In 2011 the TEMA foundation sued to stop the proposed 1/25000 Istanbul Province North Marmara Autobahn Regulatory Plan from going into effect. The seven member committee appointed to study the issue conducted their work in July 2012. The foundations for the bridge were constructed on May 29th , yet the expert committee report was completed and submitted to the court in July. A number of disputed issues were contained in the report, including the following.


• The area effected by the Northern Marmara Autobahn (KMO) are categorized as being heath land, prairie land, arid land, wetlands, agricultural land, perennial forest & populated area.
• The disturbed land will consist of: 31% wooded area, 28% agricultural land, 19% prairieland, 6% occupied area, 6% perennially wooded land and 2% arid land.
• That 40% of the area affected by the project is forested land; 2600 hectares of the 6500 hectares disturbed.
• That 1.1% of the forested area of Istanbul is affected by the project. This is area that includes in the Belgrade Forest.
• In it’s conclusion the report stated that “The idea that the various viaducts & tunnels of the KMO will damage the environment or pollute the riparian areas is exaggerated, that is, as long as the project is not constructed in methods similar to those as used for the D100 and TEM.” “The increase in traffic on the already congested existing transportation network, if the project is not completed, will lead to a higher ratio of pollutants being released into currently populated areas, thus leading to further environmental & health problems in these existing residential areas.”


We Have Destructed the Environment, but We are Developing


In emphasizing the government’s 2023 goals the report stated that “While destructive to the natural environment, the industrial operations in Tuzla & Gebze are means of growing the country’s economy and increasing industrial competition and its continuing vitality.”


Technical report members: Yıldız Technical University City and Regional Planning Department Professor Dr. Hüseyin Cengiz voted ‘no’ to the project; Istanbul University Forestry Faculty Provost Dr. Ahmet Yeşil, Yıldız Technical University Architecture Faculty, City and Regional Planning Department Docent Dr. Darçın Akın, Uludağ University Agricultural Economics Department professor Docent Dr. Serkan Gürlük, Yıldız Technical University Construction Faculty Docent Dr. Mustafa Gürsoy, Gebze Technology Institute City and Regional Planning Department Docent Dr. Mehmet Küçükmehmetoğlu and from that institute’s Environmental Engineering Department Docent Dr. Salim Öncel signed off on the report’s approval of the project. We attempted to reach the committee member Professor Dr. Ahmet Yeşil unsuccessfully.


End article


TEMA - Türkiye Erozyonla Mücadele, Ağaçlandırma ve Doğal Varlıkları Koruma Vakfı / The Turkish Foundation For Combating Erosion, Reforestation And The Protection Of Natural Habitats


KMO – Kuzey Marmara Otoyolu / Northern Marmara Autobahn


D100 – A national highway of Turkey that runs from the Bulgarian to Iranian borders, approximately 1,800 km in length. Part of the European E-80 road from Portugal to the Iranian border.


TEM – Trans-European Motorway. Also a reference to the European E-80 that runs from Portugal to Iran, through Turkey.