Did Resorts World Sentosa underestimate demands of marine park?

Straits Times Forum 25 Jan 11;

IT APPEARS that Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) has severely underestimated the demands of its bid proposal for the Marine Life Park ("Langkawi dolphin pens 'appalling'"; Jan 14).

It started with a reversal on its ability to house a whale shark. Then despite its assurances, two dolphins died.

It seems there are no contingency or fail-safe plans in place should things go awry.

The Singapore Tourism Board (STB) reviewed and arbitrated over the decision to award the contract to RWS. It, therefore, has an extended responsibility in this issue which goes beyond simply stressing that RWS must comply with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) and Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) regulations.

On commercial grounds, the current situation is grossly unfair to the other international bidders who were not selected but submitted proposals they could have fulfilled.

Insisting on accountability will serve to deter future project bidders from submitting inflated proposals solely designed to win the bid, and which they may be little confident of completing.

What recourse do winning bidders have, should they encounter insurmountable difficulties, which is highly possible with these complex projects?

In the case of RWS, the dolphins are now bearing the brutal cost of the project's steep learning curve. We should seriously consider scrapping this contentious project to focus on other aspects of marine welfare instead.

Can STB and RWS clarify these queries to justify the claims of walking the talk on marine conservation.

Roger Chow