“There is no doubt that it was well done. Line 12 was in optimal conditions to be put into service with passengers, ”says Enrique Horcasitas, former director of the Metro Project, a position he held between 2009 and 2014, and in which he was responsible for the construction of the Golden Line.
The collapse of three metal girders of the elevated viaduct between the Olivos and Tezonco stations on May 3, an accident that killed 25 people, has raised several questions about the viability of the work dating from the inauguration of the project on October 30, 2012 and even on the performance of the construction consortium, made up of the companies ICA, Carso and Alstom. But for the former official there is no room to speculate.
Horcasitas speaks with Expansión after the presentation of his book La Línea 12 del Metro , which although it was prepared before the incident more than a month ago, now announces “with the intention of exalting Mexican engineering.”
“Here the question regarding maintenance is the key to all this that has happened: what did the person who received Line 12 in optimal conditions do?” Asks the engineer, who after leaving the Metro Project in the Federal District, has dedicated himself to develop investment projects in sectors such as tourism and hotels.
Pending maintenance
Horcasitas refrains from making the slightest hypothesis about why the beams of a work with less than a decade in operation would have yielded, but for him one thing is certain: the maintenance item is the key to understanding what has happened in the short history of Line 12.
Some subsequent analyzes on the maintenance of all the Metro lines also point to this,. According to the report on the significant characteristics of the state of the assets of the Collective Transportation System (STC) from previous years, in 2018 the compliance rates for preventive maintenance work ranged from 80% to 90%. compliance, but in 2020 they fell to levels of 50% and even lower.
Expansion (E): Several documents of the Public Account indicate that the maintenance is not fulfilled. In the case of the Metro, what do you think leads to this maintenance not being done?
Enrique Horcasitas (EH): Without referring to Line 12, maintenance is crucial in any fixed or mobile structure. There is predictive maintenance that is almost almost guesswork. For example, if you are going to receive a car, and they say ‘I will deliver the car to you in six months’, predictive maintenance would consist of researching the best practices to maintain it. Then comes preventive maintenance, based on an adapted maintenance manual that must be complied with promptly. Previously in the country there was no money to study the projects. There were, to build, those loans from the IDB and others, but not for maintenance.
E: Following up on the maintenance part, in 2019-2020 we see compliance rates of 50-60% in the SCT, according to the public account, when in 2017 and 2018 they were 80%, 90%. What risks does this imply for a work?
EH: Generally speaking, I believe that more should be invested in infrastructure maintenance in our country, and it is the most profitable investment. But this maintenance issue is years, many years. In the case of Metro Line 12, the work contract is made, but the same Collective Transport System (STC) –which was the one that fundamentally prepared the bases– has said: ‘Generally we lack resources for maintenance’.
With Line 12 we said that, within the work contract, two years of maintenance had to be put in place to avoid resource problems. Finally, by agreement, it was left to one year of maintenance charged to the project. Being the CEO, I struggled a lot with maintenance resources, and that’s why it was included. Then suddenly the builder finds himself with a contract that includes a one-year warranty and maintenance in charge of the contract, the Metro project had no maintenance functions.
In the constitutive act of an organism are what are its functions; The Metro Project did not have maintenance functions, but construction, and the STC has four functions: construction, maintenance, operation and exploitation of the network. Hence, we have had to sign a coordination agreement, in which it is said that, in order to obtain levels of excellence, the STC assumes that responsibility.
Opening, premature?
The accident on May 3 was not the first sign that something was wrong with Line 12. On March 12, 2014, it was announced that it would be the first suspension of a section of the work, from the Tláhuac terminal to the station. Atlalilco, due to different problems caused by the wavy wear of the rails and premature deformations caused by the passing of the trains.
This problem led to Horcasitas being accused by the Comptroller General of the Federal District of making a preliminary delivery of the works without being duly completed, which resulted in his disqualification from holding public office for the next 20 years. However, he affirms that the preliminary delivery of the work was made within the scope of the Public Works Law, and with the endorsement of the certifying consortium made up of DB International, ILF Baratende, TÜV SÜD Rail and Hamburg Consult.
E: Do you think the opening of the line should have been postponed? There was a preliminary opening where it was already certified, but wouldn’t you consider that the opening could have been traveled to have more expertise in that part?
EH: There were 450,000 human beings demanding the service. I who walked at 6:00 in the morning in the Iztapalapa area, in Tláhuac, it was a drama for people to get a transport …
E: But they would have preferred a 100% safe transport to something that was done quickly …
EH: We still need to do an analysis of what were the reasons for the partial suspension of the service in March 2014, and [the incident] of May 3. We cannot anticipate those issues.
But regarding having received the works, keep in mind that there is the Public Works Law, which provides that you can make partial deliveries as long as you can use the part that you receive, and that it is duly completed. For example, if you have a road that goes from point A to B and C, if it is already completed from point A to point B, what case is there to wait for point C?
E: But what happened with the suspension of 2014 suggests that it was not so well done in the end …
EH: No, there is no doubt that it was well done. Line 12 was in optimal conditions to be put into service with passengers. Its quality and safety in operation was certified. Here the question regarding maintenance is the key to all this that has happened: what did the person who received Line 12 in optimal conditions do?
If we agree that preventive, predictive and corrective maintenance is to keep the property in the condition in which you received it. We have already seen that a part of the expert opinions in a trial … The three parties went to litigation: the Federal District Government, the construction consortium and the STC, after four years of drawing. They went to a trial scheme to be reconciled, each one appointed eight experts and experts, got together, helped the judges, and finally the sentences came.
First resolution: the consortium complied with the contract; second, all paid jobs correspond to jobs performed; no hidden defects were found, and Line 12 was certified, signed by all. The three parties accepted the decision of the Superior Court of Justice of the Federal District in April 2017. It is not that I say that the line ended well, it is that a national certifying body said it, and it was endorsed by a court of law. We can no longer speculate whether the line that opened on October 30 was fine or not.
E: Regarding the certifications and speaking of predictive maintenance, could it be assumed that the issue of the predictive maintenance manual was done well after events such as the 2017 earthquake? Because the consortium had to go back and do rehabilitation work.
EH: Right now it would be irresponsible to give an answer, you have to be very careful in that regard. The maintenance manual must reach the deputy director of the STC, because he has the obligation to issue the manual. Someone has to put it on the desk.
You ask me: ‘Was the manual done well?’ Well, I don’t know, because the one who has the obligation to prepare the manual is another organization. The Metro Project was the builder; As general director of the Metro Project, my obligation was to administer the construction contract from a constructive point of view.
You also talk about whether there was a rush or not; also the law is tremendous in the sense that it is stipulated the forms of the procedure to be able to give service.
The contract says “there may be partial deliveries, as long as the part that is being delivered is usable.” The Public Works Law says the same thing. What happens if the construction consortium puts a job on their desk and says: ‘I have this part and I want to give it to you’? It means a lot of money to them. Which is the most important, perhaps? The cost of the bonds. And continue to be in charge of this section, I have to control it, monitor it, and “if you don’t receive it, public official, it will cost you.”
“I have never regretted”
Horcasitas, a civil engineer and municipal engineer by profession, is satisfied with his participation in Line 12 nine years after its delivery, and almost seven years after his departure as general director of the Federal District Metro Project.
With 30 years of experience in Grupo ICA –to which one of the project’s construction companies belongs–, and with experience in other bodies such as the National Fund for the Promotion of Tourism (Fonatur), Horcasitas sees its return to the public sector impractical, as seeks to focus on his firm Grupo DESHO, established in 2007.
E: Taking into account your career at ICA, which was a key element in Line 12, from what happens on May 3, have you approached you to ask, assess something?
EH: No, absolutely. Neither would I accept. There is nothing to talk about May 3.
E: And from the authorities, have there been any approaches?
EH: No, none. No one has asked me, and if they did, I tell them what I know. It would be the same talk that you and I are having. As of October 30, in legal and formal terms, I don’t know what happened after that. And it is clear to me what the head of government has said: we are going to wait for the opinions. It is not the right thing to speculate.
E: In retrospect, and based on this incident, what lesson do you think it leaves for the planning and management of future projects, not only for Metro, but also for public works?
EH: I think the Public Works Law would have to be analyzed in depth again, because it is analyzed every time a new one arrives… At the CMIC I was vice president for two years, and I was vice president for institutional relations.
There have been proposals for 30 or 35 years, and the latest occurrence is that the presidency of the investigating commission has said that the lump sum, comprehensive projects should be canceled, that a project should not start without an executive project.
E: Don’t you consider that this part of executive projects is not affected by the political part in the sense that it is difficult to do transsexenal projects? Officials want to plan, execute and inaugurate a work
EH: That seems to be a custom, but let me tell you, because I have been asked, and sometimes the question seems to have two faces. Line 12, I never perceived a pressure in time or that it was impregnated with any political factor, never. They invited me on September 17, 2009; I did not participate in the public tender, nor did I participate in the award of the contract.
When the head of government invited me, he was very clear: the goal is for Line 12 to be completed in a timely manner, and I always add: ‘With whatever that means.’ Line 12 was delivered 10 months after the official time, and a fine of 1,600 million pesos was charged [to the construction consortium].
E: Do you go away calm? The event is unfortunate and affects us all, but, as a key part of the project, do you leave in peace?
EH : Despite all the setbacks I have had, I have never regretted having participated in such an important project, so emblematic and, above all, so serving the public. I have never regretted it.
Aside from writing about Line 12, which is progressing, I can write a horror novel about what happened to me unfairly. At this time, said by my attorney, I have absolutely no verdicts against me, they have all been won, and no accusations that neither my attorney nor I know about.
E: Is the disqualification [for 20 years issued in 2015] not in place either?
EH: Neither. It turns out that the contract and the law allow the work to be partially received, and the work received to be duly completed.
Three or four directors who were authorized to receive the line … I did not sign the receipt. Three or four directors were accused of having received the line without having the works properly finished. An abuse, because the contract and the law allow it; the word “duly finished” they interpreted as they wanted.
We asked the Comptroller for a document, an opinion, and he authorized the partial delivery and established the mechanism to specify it, and he says: ‘no, I am not punishing you for having received the line, but for not having supervised the directors that they received the line in the indispensable conditions’. The directors were exonerated because they won in accordance with the contract and the law.
They were exonerated, it means that there is no administrative fault, and I continued with the disqualification for not having supervised whoever fulfilled their obligation. The disqualification against me was lifted 20 days ago, almost a month.
