PPC rejected complaint over contract for Fort Wellington school extension

-local gov’t ministry provided no information

The Public Procurement Commission (PPC) last December rejected a complaint by a bidder over the award of a project for the extension of the Fort Wellington Secondary School but the procuring entity, the Ministry of Local Government never provided any of the requested information for the investigation.

Bickram Motiram trading as Motiram Construction wrote a letter of complaint dated September 1, 2003 which was received by the PPC on September 6, 2003.

According to the PPC’s Summary of Findings dated December 29, 2023, Motiram alleged that at the tender opening, his bid was the lowest and that he had fulfilled all administrative requirements. He further submitted that he was “a well rounded and seasoned contractor with vast experience and resources which were all demonstrated and attached with [his] bid document.”

Motiram further acknowledged in the letter that he was cognizant that the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) does not always award the lowest bidder but expressed frustration that his bid was overlooked for a higher bid and requested the reasons for this.

The commission said it reviewed the tender proceedings to determine whether there was any irregularity in the award of the tender.

In accordance with Article 212DD of the constitution, the commission on September 13, 2023, requested that the NPTAB submit to the commission within five days -

i. a copy of the record of the tender proceedings, including the Evaluation Report;

ii. confirmation as to whether the tender was awarded and if so, the date of publication on NPTAB’s website in accordance with S. 11 of the Procurement Act. If awarded but not published, the reason for not so doing;

iii. whether a copy of the Evaluation Report had been sent to the procuring entity for compliance with S. 39(3) of the Procurement Act, Cap. 73:05.

The Ministry of Local Government & Regional Development was similarly asked to submiti. a copy of the tender proceedings and Evaluation Report. If not in the possession of the procuring entity, why not. ii. whether the procuring entity complied with S. 39(3) of the Procurement Act, Cap. 73:05, and it not, why not; iii. confirmation as to whether the tender has been awarded;

iv. if the tender has been awarded, confirmation as to whether the contract had been entered into and if so, a copy thereof; v. if the contract had been entered into, confirmation of whether the tender award decision was published on NPTAB’s website prior to entry into the contract; vi. confirmation as to whether any work had commenced on the subject tender.

“The commission did not receive a response from the procuring entity whether within the requested timeline or at all”, the PPC said. In previous investigations, the PPC has complained about receiving incomplete information or receiving a response very late. In this case nothing came from the ministry

On or about November 10, 2023, almost two months after the commission’s request, the PPC said that it received a copy of the tender proceedings including the Evaluation Report from NPTAB. The commission did not receive a response from NPTAB to the other requests.

In its examination, the PPC said that the bids for the tender were opened at the office of the NPTAB on June 27, 2023. Twentythree bids were received of which five were deemed responsive. The Engineer’s Estimate was given as $23,209,723 and the contract was awarded to Safraz Construction & Supplies which was deemed the lowest evaluated tenderer at $20,416,000.

While Motiram’s bid was the lowest submitted at $19,386,930, the PPC said that the Report of the Evaluation Committee disclosed that the bid was deemed non-responsive for not being compliant with two of the seventeen evaluation criteria:

Criteria #1 - The submission of a valid Business Registration or Certificate of Incorporation that is clearly legible.

The copy of the Business Registration on record was not endorsed with a stamp of validity for the period.

Criteria#16 - Provision of qualification and experience of key personnel. The bidder must designate an individual to fill each key position and provide detailed curriculum vitae (CV) for the key personnel with consent letter.

The record reflected that while Motiram did submit a list of key personnel, one of the two key listed personnel, the electrical foreman, did not submit a detailed CV and the consent letter for the use of his CV, was not signed.

In accordance with the Procurement Act, in order to be deemed responsive and considered for a contract award, the bidder must not only satisfy the administrative requirements but also all of the evaluation criteria, the PPC said. The failure to satisfy any one of the evaluation criteria will result in the bid being non-responsive and thereby not considered for the award.

The actions of evaluation committees of the NPTAB are coming under increasing scrutiny as in the case of the controversial contract that was awarded to Tepui Inc for the Belle Vue Pump Station, the guidelines were not strictly applied.

The commission said it did not found any irregularity by way of breach of the Procurement Act in the NPTAB’s rejection of the bid of the complainant as being non-responsive.

As it has in other cases, it expressed disappointment at the ignoring of its request for information.

“The commission expresses disappointment and concern at the nonresponse by the procuring entity and sloth of response by NPTAB to the request for information by the commission. In addition to adversely affecting the work and efficiency of the commission, it also unnecessarily undermines transparency. The commission urges procuring entities and NPTAB to be better responsive”, it said.