Dear Editor,
Governance is filled with challenges; the recent retender brouhaha is a good example. It would seem the explanations offered are too technical in nature and layman’s terms are preferred, so here goes: an agency budgeted a fixed sum (say 10 dollars) for steel, went out to tender, and then canceled the tender thereby causing some confusion. The agency was faced with three courses of action: A. Cancel the tender and ask for a retender. B. Cancel the tender completely or until a new budget could accommodate the higher costs. C. Accept a bid at ten dollars with the knowledge that steel prices had risen dramatically and the winning bidder would have supplied and asked for a variation on submission of the invoice.
Contract variations are changes in the amount or cost of works/service/supply stated in a contract. These can be either an increase or decrease in the work needed to be done, changing the scope of work. These contract variations may be instructed by the client or proposed by the contractors which are to be agreed upon by all parties. The use of variations is a method used by unscrupulous contractors and government officials to bypass tender regulations; very often the lowest bidder’s final bill exceeds the highest bidder’s tender as the contractor and officials collude to approve a series of variations.
The Ministry of Agriculture’s decision to firstly retender and then cancel the supply request is altogether proper and may have foiled a plan to exploit a well-known loophole in the tender laws. Minister Zulfikar Mustapha’s instruction is a ‘variation’ on business as usual that is welcome and long overdue.
Sincerely,
Robin Singh
