Kobla Quashie and Associates to audit ETA
MBABANE- Kobla Quashie and Associates has been enlisted as the best evaluated tenderer to provide external audit services for Eswatini Tourism Authority (ETA).
7his was revealed by the (swatini 3ublic 3rocurement 5egulatory $gen cy (6335$ in their website. 7he intention to award the company was published on 7hursday and they are e[pected to begin e[ecuting it after a period of 10 worNing days.
$ccording to the regulatory agency, (7$ was looNing for a contractor to audit their services. .obla 4uashie and $ssociates is e[pected to provide many
DETAILS OF ALL OTHER EVALUATED RESPONSIVE TENDERERS
NAME
Kobla Quashie and As- sociates
Corporate Business Solutions
SNG Grant
Thornton
NATIONALITY
Eswatini
Eswatini
Eswatini
assurances and non assurance services for (7$. 7he services include an audit of financial statements, ,nternational )inancial 5eporting 6tandards ,)56 reporting, review of financial statements, compiling financial statements, internal audit service, advisory service, risNs assurance, as well as corporate secretary.
E V A L U A T E D TOTAL SCORE PRICE
E261 027
E242 192.36
E460 933 84.26%
84.26% 77.71% behaviours. 7he initial proposed contract price of the tender was ( 1 0 .
:orth noting, in the past three weeNs, small construction companies, which are based in the country have acTuired over
0 tenders, which were afore granted to big companies. 7his is in line with the provision and procurement of tenders in the public procurement regulations, which states that local companies will be granted preferences in the evaluation of tenders in public procurement.
.obla 4uashie and $ssociates was competing with 61* *rant 7hornton and &orporate %usiness 6olutions for the tender. 7he total evaluated score for the other two companies were revealed in the tender document and it was indicated that 61* *rant 7hornton had received the lowest evaluation score.
7hey lost the evaluation with a scored below 0 per cent, as it stood at . 1 per cent, occupying third place.
&orporate %usiness 6olutions were second, in terms of evaluation despite having the lowest bid price, thus maN ing 61* *rant 7hornton a favourable company for the tender. (7$ was the procuring entity for the tender which was approved by the authority of the %oard. (6335$ reTuested the unsuccessful bid der to submit an application for review with the agency within 10 worNing days.
³$ll tenderers who submitted bids are hereby notified that a period of 10 worNing days is hereby allowed for sub mission of any application for review´, said (6335$.
7he agency also mentioned that the tender does not constitute a contract.