The Cevons Waste Management joint venture has moved to the High Court to review the Communities Ministry’s award of the $221M contract to Puran Brothers Disposal Inc. for the management and maintenance of the Haags Bosch Sanitary Landfill, on the grounds that the decision was unfair.
The joint venture has resorted to litigation even as it awaits a directive on payment of fees from the recently constituted Bid Protest Committee (BPC), which it has also approached for a review of the contract award.
Further, the Cevons Group says that although the Communities Ministry was aware that it had officially objected to the award of the contract, it knowingly went ahead and signed the contract with Puran Brothers, which violates the Procurement Act.
“Regulations 14(1) says that when the matter is before the BPC, the procurement process is suspended. Notwithstanding the suspension, the minister went ahead and executed the contract with Puran Brothers and that was unlawful,” attorney for the Cevons group Neil Boston explained.
“The law says it is suspended when you challenge the valuation. That is the problem. If the process is suspended…they had written to them telling them that they were challenging…notwithstanding that the minister executed the contract. Nothing should have been executed because the process has not been completed,” he added.
CEO of Cevons Morse Archer has told Stabroek News that he had learned that the contract was awarded to Puran Brothers through reportage in this newspaper on July 1st of this year. Cabinet’s no-objection to this contract was announced by the Ministry of the Presidency on June 30th.
Archer said that immediately they wrote to the procuring entity and the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) to indicate their objections to the award. The Ministry officially informed the company on July 8th that its bid was unsuccessful. He said that acting within the legal timeframe for an official protest to be made, which is five days, he wrote to the Ministry of Communities informing of their appeal.
A response was received on July 13th from the Permanent Secretary stating that the appeal request had been denied. Under Regulation 11(2) of the Procurement Act, which provides that if the complainant is not satisfied with the decision of the procuring entity, he/she could apply to the BPC for review within three working days, Archer then submitted a protest.
However, on July 14th, the Ministry of Communities went ahead and signed the contract with Puran Brothers and Archer believes this violated the Procurement Act. Cevons wants the court to direct Minister of Communities Ronald Bulkan and Permanent Secretary Emil McGarrell to show cause why an Order or Rule Nisi of Certiorari should not be issued to quash the decision to award the contract to Puran Brothers Disposal Inc. on the grounds that it was unfair.
Further, the group is also seeking an order directed to Bulkan and McGarrell to show cause why an Order or Rule Nisi of Certiorari should not be issued to quash the decision to execute the contract, as well as an order to suspend or terminate the contract and an order for setting aside the valuation made by the valuation committee and for a re-evaluation of the Cevons and Puran Brothers bids. It is also seeking an order to prevent any continued payment to Puran Brothers.
It is the contention of the Cevons group that the Evaluation Committee improperly assessed the bids and used an evaluation that was inconsistent with the criteria set out in the tender documents
Meanwhile, Archer informed that he has written to the Chairman of the NPTAB informing him that while his company was notified that it had to pay a fee for the BPC action to begin, they still have to clarify where the monies are to be deposited.
“We received a letter from NPTAB saying the committee received our protest and so on and we should pay a fee but when we got there no one could tell us where we had to pay and there seemed to be confusion,” he said.
The letter referenced by Archer is dated July 28th, 2016 and informs the company that the NPTAB received correspondence for a review from the company, dated July 12th 2016.
“As you are aware the Bid Protest Committee has been recently established. You will be informed regarding the date and time of the hearing…In accordance with Part V Section 13 (2) Administrative Review of the regulations made under the Procurement Act of 2003 there is a registration fee attached to each bid protest,” the letter reads.
“The registration fee applied is $50,000.00 and 1% of the estimated value of the procurement,” it added while saying that Archer should contact the Chief Executive Officer of the NPTAB regarding making the payment.
Archer informed that when he went last week to the NPTAB to make the payment, he was told to “hold on” as it was not clear where the monies are to be deposited. He was due to return to the NPTAB yesterday to ascertain where the monies have to be paid.
