In the wake of its investigation of the awarding of a pump station project to Tepui Inc which did not have the requisite experience, the PPC has recommended that evaluators stick rigidly with the evaluation criteria for tenders.
In its summary of findings issued on Tuesday, six months after a complaint by MP David Patterson, the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) recommended that “Evaluators must strictly abide with the express terms of the Evaluation Criteria for the tender being evaluated”. The PPC pointed out that the previous commission had said the Evaluation Committee should not consider evaluation criteria not outlined in the tender documents.
The PPC, chaired by attorney Pauline Chase, said that an Evaluation Committee “does not possess the authority, discretion or jurisdiction to vary or (waive) Evaluation Criteria unless expressly provided for in the tender documents”.
It also recommended that the Evaluation Committee should be “very meticulous” in its review of bids to ensure that they are evaluated in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria so that the Procurement Act is not breached.
“The Evaluation Report should give a true and complete account of the evaluation process. Accordingly, it must clearly set out all pertinent matters, including but not limited to, date of completion of the evaluation, analysis of the tenders, whether arithmetic checks were done in accordance with S. 39(4)(b) of the Procurement Act, Cap. 73:05 and whether clarification was sought from any of the bidders and if so the particulars thereof”, the PPC said.
The upshot of the summary of findings is that though Tepui did not comply with the evaluation criteria, a contract has already been signed and the PPC does not have any authority to rescind, recall or alter the contract in any way.
The PPC’s summary of findings is replete with examples of the Evaluation Committee of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) bending over backwards to justify not strictly applying the evaluation criteria to Tepui’s bid. One of the key requirements was for Tepui to have had prior experience with a project similar to a pump station. It did not have this and readily admitted it.
However, when questioned by the PPC, the NPTAB said that the work done by Tepui in the less than a year it was in existence was similar to what was required for a pump station.
The PPC noted that Evaluation Criteria No. 8, required the awarded contractor to: “Demonstrate specific construction experience by providing copies of contracts with previous clients that show the bidder has completed one (1) project of similar nature within the past five (5) years. (Similar projects shall include pump stations, sluices and drainage structures)” [emphasis re Bidding Documents].
The PPC said that the record before it reflects that Tepui submitted two contracts under this criterion heading: a contract between it and Hadi’s World Inc. dated March 27th, 2023, for the construction of a concrete wharf at Providence, and a contract between it and the Central Housing and Planning Authority dated February 24th, 2023, for the upgrading of roads in Block 3, Great Diamond.
Further, the List of Current Projects submitted by Tepui under Evaluation Criteria No. 14, gave the status of the aforesaid projects at the time of the bid submission (June 2023) as 30% and 20% completed, respectively.
The commission noting that the works for which the contracts were submitted by Tepui were neither for a “pump station, sluice and or drainage structure” as specified in the Evaluation Criteria nor were any, by Tepui’s own admission, completed, also as required by the Evaluation Criteria, wrote to the NPTAB by on February 6th, 2024 and requested clarification as to the basis on which the Evaluation Committee deemed Tepui as responsive to the said criterion No. 8.
Upgrading
In addition, Tepui submitted as part of its tender, a letter addressed to the procuring entity – the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA) – and dated June 13th, 2023, under the hand of Winston Martindale, Director captioned `Record of Past Work Experience’ in which it is stated – “Our company was registered in August 2022 and has now commenced the process of bidding for projects, hence we do not have any past work experience but our team of personnel have years of experience under upgrading and rehabilitation of roads as indicated on their respective resumes.”
By way of the letter of February 6th, 2024, the commission also requested from NPTAB, “clarification as to the authority on which the Evaluation Committee acted which permitted the winning bidder to rely on, and the Evaluation Committee to accept, the purported work experience of the bidder’s officers, as distinct from the bidder itself (a company) which admitted no past work experience.”
The PPC said that the NPTAB responded, first by way of letter dated February 15th, 2024, and received by the commission via email on February 21st, 2024, in which it stated “The National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) seeks to clarify the similarities between the construction projects: Pump Station at Belle Vue, West Bank Demerara; construction of pile bed and foundation for wharf at Providence for Hadi’s World Inc.; and Infrastructure Development Works at Block 3 Great Diamond. The evaluation ensured compliance based on the bidder’s relevant contracts, such as with Hadi’s World Inc. and Central Housing & Planning Authority (CH&PA).
Specifically, as it relates to the construction of pile bed and foundation for wharf, the NPTAB said this was deemed “pertinent” to the tender requirement.
It said: “The construction of a pump station and a pile bed foundation involve multifaceted tasks and material supplies to create robust infrastructure. Commonalities lie in foundational aspects, with earthworks for the pump station and pre-stressed concrete piles for the wharf providing stability. Structural works are vital in both projects, encompassing the construction of pile caps and beams for the pump station and various structural elements like deck slabs and U-beams for the wharf. Additionally, revetment works are necessary for both to prevent erosion and ensure long-term stability. Both projects require meticulous attention to detail in supplying and installing essential components such as steel frameworks and pumps. Furthermore, aspects like road access, internal landscaping, and electrical works contribute to the functionality and aesthetics of both structures”.
It also said that Tepui’s Infrastructure Development Works at Block 3 Great Diamond was relevant to the pump station construction.
Entail
“Both projects entail earthmoving tasks like excavation and grading to prepare the construction site. They also necessitate the erection of various structures such as roads, bridges, and pump station superstructures, often involving concrete work. Additionally, they require the establishment or enhancement of road infrastructure, drainage systems, electrical installations, landscaping, and equipment supply”, the NPTAB said.
It added that the decisions regarding bid evaluation were consistent with past practices, “where leniency was extended to bidders lacking direct pump station construction experience but demonstrating proficiency in similar projects”.
Additionally, NPTAB said it acted on precedence and discretion to criteria No. 8 as previous pump station contracts were awarded to those without any pump station construction experience.
It also tried to explain contradictions in information supplied by Tepui on the state of completion of the projects that it had adduced in the hope of securing the contract.
“It is important to note that discrepancies were identified between the original bid document and electronic copies, particularly regarding project completion percentages. The original bid document listed the projects: the construction of a concrete pile bed and foundation at Providence (Hadi’s World Inc.) and the upgrading of roads in Block 3, Great Diamond (CH&PA) as 100% and 80% completed, respectively, while the electronic copies indicated lower completion rates of 30% and 20%. In such cases, the information provided in the original bid document takes precedence”, it said.
The PPC’s response was that whether the projects submitted by Tepui were 20% complete or 80% complete is immaterial as what was required by the Evaluation Criteria was ‘completion’ – 100%.
Notwithstanding NPTAB’s responses, the PPC said that it appears that the Evaluation Committee considered the projects submitted by Tepui as relevant in satisfying the requirement of “projects of a similar nature” and interpreted the criterion to mean that they were not limited to consider only “pump station, sluice and or drainage structure”. The PPC said that the Evaluation Committee, which was comprised of two Civil Engineers, “appears to have exercised a professional judgment that the work involved in the projects submitted by the bidder were of sufficient complexity and similarity to be considered. Ostensibly, an evaluation, particularly of this criterion, would involve an exercise of judgment or opinion and as with judgments and opinions, there would be mixed views”.
The criteria however required completion of a similar project, the PPC stated.
That was just one of a number of guidelines that the Tepui tender failed to comply with.
