Sector / Department: 

Proposed Construction of Uganda Road Fund and Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority Head Office At Plot 39 Nakasero Road Kampala

The above named parastatal bodies advertised on 24th April 2014 for and selected a consortium of professional consultants for the design and supervision of the above project for a contract fee sum of Shs 675m.
Our consortium of 5No. specialist consultants led by one of the famous Environment Consultants won the bid and started working on the project, albeit under obscured terms. I was No. 2 among five specialists in the consortium. Draft sub-contracts were presented but not accepted for reason of detection of deliberate errors of arithmetic and fact. Attempts were made at rectification until we were finally asked to propose commensurate fee amounts to the lead consultant. Having done this, we were pressed to continue with work as if proposal was accepted but no confirmation was notified. Interim payments received by lead consultant were downstreamed to the sub-consultants in a haphazard manner. Amazed at brazen attempts to defraud by a long time colleague, we sought for rationalization but were prevailed to deliver on urgent deliverables, up through all the "critical stages" were made. We were congratulated for these levels of achievements. He continued to defer further requests for agreement of sub-consultant agreements for no meaningful reasons. The urgency of project work helped cause some laxity on terms, albeit.
At the next batch of deliverables, our component of Draft Bills of Quantities and Cost Estimates, submitted to the lead consultant by email were not presented at the meeting with joint client contract committee. The latter instructed the lead consultant to report to them with his Quantity Surveyor (me) at the next meeting set seven days away.
The lead consultant had by now contrived a plan to replace me as evidenced by "missing emailed input" and sought my replacement. The client's executive director and contracts' committee members later revealed all these facts of misrepresentation to me intimated that they were given some odd reason to which they naively fell and allowed replacement. We discussed the above with the client in my search for intervention by the client before an important portion of fees would be paid to thieving lead consultant but to no avail despite glaring facts on the internet, case law, and correspondence.
Moreover, the case law cited (HCCS 558 OF 2003 VIRGIL IDUSSO vs FRANK (not real name)) the lead consultant (name withheld) was our arbitrator and found in my favour in exactly the similar consultancy contract, where another architect was trying the bully game. Back then the client charted the clear path for client and lead consultant!
I am owed Shs. 53,996,510 but the lead consultant is dangling Shs 3,500,000. The client has conveniently marched away from duty to uphold the demands of their mandate to manage the consultancy contract in accordance with their raison d'etre.