Both the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA) yesterday said they had nothing to do with a controversial retendering for steel sheets and the focus is now on the Minis-try of Agriculture.
A day earlier, the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) had distanced itself from the decision to retender.
Chairman of the NDIA Lionel Wordsworth told Stabroek News yesterday that as chairman he has “nothing to do” with tendering of contracts as he leads a policy implementation board for the NDIA.
“The Chairman presides over the Board of Directors where we address policy matters. I have nothing to do with contracts… that is for the Authority itself, not the Board,” he said.
He suggested that the CEO of the NDIA would be better able to answer questions on the issue.
However, when contacted, CEO Frederick Flatts told Stabroek News that he has been on leave for 60 days and is “not involved in this whole thing” pertaining to the issue of the decision to retender and as such “won’t be able to answer” questions on who made the decisions.
Several efforts yesterday to contact Minister of Agriculture Zulfikar Mustapha for further clarification on the retendering proved futile.
The NPTAB on Tuesday distanced itself from the decision to retender the contract after initially being cited on Monday by the Ministry of Agricul-ture. The Board will meet next week to discuss the issue.
An NPTAB official told Stabroek News that the Board will want to clarify its role, including that it “does not decide on re-tendering,” 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.
Following the retender, which received 12 bids, the Ministry of Agriculture issued a press release on Monday in response to a Kaieteur News report that highlighted the retendering. The Ministry withdrew the press release on Tuesday without explanation.
The Ministry in the redacted release had sought to deny any role in the decision to retender as it claimed that the decision would have had to have been made by the NPTAB. “…by virtue of the Pro-curement Act 2003, public procurement of goods and services up to a certain limit is done exclusively by the NPTAB, a body that is independent, separate and apart from both the Ministry of Agri-culture and the NDIA. The NPTAB has its own employees and the BIDS received through the tendering process are assessed by evaluators drawn from across the public sector by the NPTAB. Indeed, no evaluators are drawn from the sector whose BID is being evaluated. In summary, therefore, the Minis-try of Agriculture nor the NDIA plays any role whatsoever in the tendering of contracts,” the ministry release had stated on Monday.
“The tendering of bids, acceptance of bids and subsequent award of bids are done through the [NPTAB] once it is above a prescribed limit. All these projects named in the articles are above that prescribed limit and therefore falls under the ambit and control of the NPTAB and not the Ministry or the NDIA,” it added.
The release further said that if an aggrieved bidder wishes to know the grounds for the rejection of the bid, they can contact the NPTAB for such information.
The Ministry quoted Section 40 of the Procurement Act as it sought to explain that it was merely following instructions. “Section 40 of the Procurement Act 2003 states that “(1) Subject to approval by the National Board, if so specified in the solicitation documents, the appropriate board may reject all tenders at any time prior to the acceptance of a tender. The appropriate board shall upon request, communicate to any supplier or contractor that submitted a tender the grounds for its rejection of all tenders, but is not required to justify those grounds. 2) The appropriate board shall incur no liability, solely by virtue of its invoking subsection (1), towards suppliers or contractors that have submitted tenders. (3) Notice of the rejection of all tenders shall be given promptly to all suppliers or contractors that submitted tenders.”
“Therefore, based on the above, the Ministry of Agriculture nor the NDIA cannot request retendering or rejection of bids. It is only the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) that can do so. The NDIA only provides the engineer’s estimate which is published along with the tenders for bids. Therefore, it cannot be said that the NDIA (the budget agency) has been turning down competitive bids as is being claimed in the September 19th, 2021 [Kaieteur News] article,” the release had added.
However, the Procurement Act makes clear the role of the procuring entity 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 Committee 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!”
