It can be deduced that TIE assumed a role akin to a project manager, but there's no clear evidence that TIE or any individual within it was formally appointed as the project manager. Despite sponsoring the project, the CEC did not establish a committee or project management team to supervise TIE's role as the main contractor and the distribution of tasks to subcontractors. They adopted a too detached approach, allowing TIE to operate autonomously. The lack of stakeholder participation resulted in a poor understanding of the project and an ineffective strategy for its completion and readiness for passenger use. The weak organizational structure was burdened by ongoing disputes among contractors and political parties aiming to undermine the project and blame its failure on the current authorities. Explanation: The text suggests that TIE functioned in a role similar to a project manager, but there's no explicit evidence of a formal appointment. The CEC, despite being the project sponsor, did not provide a supervisory team to oversee TIE's work and the distribution of tasks to subcontractors. This resulted in a lack of stakeholder involvement and a poor understanding of the project. The organizational structure was weak and was further strained by ongoing conflicts among contractors and political parties, which aimed to undermine the project and attribute its failure to the existing authorities. COMPRESS THE ABOVE