Following the controversial retendering of steel for the Ministry of Agriculture’s National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA), a decision is being mulled to cancel the tender altogether and cease the practice of the authority stockpiling steel.
“A proposal was made to cancel the tender altogether and not have the NDIA stockpile on steel piles. That way, whenever there is a contract, the persons bidding will submit tenders that incorporate the cost of steel needed and not have the NDIA provide it,” a source close to the issue told Stabroek News.
The Ministry of Agriculture on Tuesday withdrew their statement that blamed the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) for the retendering and will today issue another clarifying the issue.
The NPTAB on Tuesday had distanced itself from the decision to retender the contract after initially being cited on Monday by the Ministry of Agriculture as being responsible, and said its Board will meet to discuss the issue on Tuesday.
Minister of Agriculture Zulfikar Mustapha told Stabroek News yesterday that he was out of town on work duty and so did not have the time to go over the new statement. He promised that it would be issued either late last evening or this morning, depending on what time he had gotten back into his Georgetown office.
An NPTAB official had told Stabroek News that the Board will want to clarify its role, including that it “does not decide on retendering,” because if a contract should be advertised again it lies solely with the procuring entity, which “recommends and justifies” such decisions. “NPTAB merely facilitates the decision of the procuring entity,” the official explained.
Yesterday, the Board met with officials of the NDIA and the Ministry of Agriculture, and said it will issue a statement.
Sources told this newspaper that the tender in question had to be retendered after the winning contractor of the tender last November subsequently informed that he could not accept the contract because the prices he had quoted had increased significantly.
Following the contractor’s withdrawal, the Ministry of Agriculture had approached NPTAB for permission to retender and it was given. A retendering of the project soon followed.
The retendering notice was issued in April of this year and another set of bids submitted. An evaluation was done but the there was a dispute since many of the bids had given quotations without adding Value Added Tax on the steel.
Bidders in the meantime informed that the price of steel had again gone up and that there would be variations.
The procuring entity asked yet again for all the tenders to be scrapped but NPTAB rejected the request.
However, the project was again retendered and this saw last week’s submissions from 12 companies.
The Procurement Act makes clear the role of the procuring agency, in this case the NDIA.
As it pertains to examination and evaluation of tenders, Section 39 states that “(1) the procuring entity shall transmit to the Evaluation Committee all tenders timely received from contractors or suppliers promptly following the bid opening ceremony for the evaluation. (2) The Evaluation Committee shall, using only the evaluation criteria outlined in the tender documents, evaluate all tenders, determine which tenderer has submitted the lowest evaluated tender, and convey its recommendation to the procuring entity within a reasonable period of time, but not longer than fourteen days. (3) The procuring entity shall, if it agrees with the Report of the Evaluation Committee, publicly disclose the name of the tenderer identified by the Evaluation Commit-tee as the lowest evaluated tenderer.”
It continues, “If the procuring entity does not agree with the Evaluation Committee’s determination, the procuring entity shall issue an advisory recommendation to the Evaluation Committee regarding which bidder should be the lowest evaluated bidder, which recommendation the Evaluation Committee shall observe.”
The law says also that the “procuring entity may ask, within a reasonable period of time, suppliers or contractors for clarifications of their tenders in order to assist in the examination and comparison of tenders.” However “No change in a matter of substance in the tender, including changes in price and changes aimed at making a nonresponsive tender responsive, shall be sought, offered or permitted.”
On June 25 this year, Stabroek News published a letter complaining about the retendering of steel piles for the NDIA. The letter read as follows:
“Bids were opened earlier this month and read for a tender contract [NDIA] to supply a fixed quantity of steel sheet piles. This is a re-tendering of a bid put out last November for sheet piling. No award was made last November although several bids were tendered for the correct grade of sheet pile at a competitive price by reputable bidders. There were complaints of the lowest bid not getting the contract last November. It is the norm that the lowest bid gets the contract once the company demonstrates the ability to carry out the work or supply the required materials. In this case, the re-tendered bid was awarded last Thursday in memo by cabinet and not to the lowest bidder but at some $40M above the lowest bid. Why?
“Taxpayers will now have to fork out an extra $40 million during this tough Covid time. This money could have been used to provide grants to the unemployed. Will there be an investigation? Coincidentally, a high official of the government has been residing in a house of the selected bidder on the East Bank. Information available is that all bidders will have to supply, according to the tender, the same specifications for the sheet piles and all qualified in the other areas outlined in the tender. Several bids were tendered to supply the sheet piles. The sheet piles were all to be obtained from the same company in Holland. Thus, the price for the sheet piles was not expected to vary.
“The lowest bid was $172+M followed by $178+M, $187+M, $194+M, and the last was almost $211M. There were also other bids lower than as well as higher than the latter. Why was the highest bid chosen for this contract – costing government almost $40M more? The country needs answers!”
