While not addressing the fact that the winner of the $865m Belle Vue, West Bank Demerara, Pump Station contract did not meet the specified experience criteria, the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) yesterday defended the award as it said it was one of the lowest responsive bids.
“Specifically, with regards to the construction of the Belle Vue Pump Station project, twenty-six (26) companies tendered for that project. Thirteen (13) bids were deemed non-responsive and were therefore not considered for award. Of the thirteen (13) substantially responsive and compliant bids, the lowest priced responsive bid was awarded the Meten-Meer-Zorg Pump Station, while the second lowest responsive bid was awarded the Jimbo/Grove Pump Station. Tepui was the third lowest priced responsive bidder and was awarded the Belle Vue Pump Station.”
The board added, “Clearly, therefore, merely looking at the bid price announced at the opening of the bid cannot be used to adjudge the winning bidder and, (worse) yet, be used to impugn the integrity of the evaluation process and subsequent award of the contract.”
It was not immediately clear how three separate pump station awards could be made from one group of bids.
NPTAB referred to a letter by APNU+AFC MP Ganesh Mahipaul, who bemoaned the evaluation process of the tender but it did not address a similar concern raised by Opposition MP David Patterson who has taken the issue to the Public Procurement Commission, asking for an investigation to be launched.
“A contract for the construction of a Pump Station at Belle Vue, West Bank Demerara, Region #3, was awarded to Tepui Group Inc. on August 14, 2023, the procuring entity was the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority, Ministry of Agriculture, I write seeking an investigation into the award of this contract on the basis that the Contractor was not eligible for the award,” Patterson said in a letter to the Public Procurement Commission (PPC), on Tuesday.
Submitted with the letter were the details of the $865,543,500 contract award and the fact that the company was only formed late last year. Also among the documents was the contract award letter from NPTAB to the company, dated August 14.
Patterson noted that of the 26 companies that bid, the company which won did not meet key bidding criteria, which stated that bidders had to have completed similar projects within the last three years.
“The technical requirements of the bid documents required the successful bidder to have successfully completed projects of a similar nature and size within the last three years. Tepui Group Inc. having been established in August 2022, do not meet these requirements, however, were still awarded the contract.
“Please find attached, documents and articles that are in the public’s domain. I would be grateful, via the PPC, if an investigation can be conducted, and should the award prove defective, that the necessary actions be taken against the entities and individuals associated with this award,” he added.
The former minister pointed out that the company’s directors were, Winston Martindale, Paul Rodrigues, Michael Rodrigues known as ‘Guyanese Critic’, Sunnil Bhagwandin, and Francis Arokium.
Verifiable
An NPTAB official pointed this newspaper to the clause: ”Demonstrate general construction experience within the past five (5) years by providing a list of verifiable completed projects. The value of the project, year completed and clients’ name and contact numbers must be provided,” the criteria stated.
But is it unclear if Tepui provided such a list, and if it did, where those projects were executed.
NPTAB used most of the release to explain what it said constitutes responsiveness of a bid.
But observers have pointed out that bidders at procurement forums have consistently lamented on the award process.
“Public advertisement of all tenders, public opening of bids (in fact NPTAB is singular in that it opens and reads all bids in full view of bidders and the public at large both in-person and virtually), and the evaluation of bids by a three-person independent evaluation team. The bidding documents contain the criteria to be used for the assessment of the winning bidder (which does not prescribe any role for the gender, race, religion, or political persuasion of the bidder). The evaluators are required to apply the evaluation criteria, and that alone, as the basis for its recommendation to the Board, and the Board’s award is subject to a no-objection of Cabinet, if the value of the award is above G$15 million,” NPTAB explained.
It said that in any bid, there are administrative, technical, and financial criteria to be followed which are assessed by the Evaluation Committee in making its recommendation to NPTAB. “These criteria are all fully enshrined in the specific tender document applicable to the specific procurement, whether for goods, works or services. For clarity, administrative compliance includes provision of a valid business registration, valid Guyana Revenue Authority and National Insurance Scheme compliances, applicable bid security, signed bid form by the authorized representative of the firm, and any other document required by the bid document. Non-compliance with any of these would result in the bid not being considered for further evaluation,” the agency said.
“Arithmetic check is then conducted to correct any discrepancy. This may result in the actual bid price being different from what was called at the opening of the bid. A key aspect of the evaluation process entails assessing technical and financial capacity. This includes that the bidder demonstrates specific construction experience and evidence of financial capacity. Additionally, bidders must meet the stated equipment and human resources requirements in the bid document,” it added.
Noted was that bidders who have three or more outstanding contracts from any public sector agency, would not be considered for additional awards, according to NPTAB.
“An outstanding contract is one where more than 20% of the value of the contract is not completed as per original contract deadline for final completion,” it explained.
“In accordance with the standard procedure, an award is made to the lowest priced RESPONSIVE bid. Responsiveness in this regard is subject to the stated criteria in the bidding document. Nothing else!!!,” the agency emphasized.
Referring to the Procurement Act, NPTAB said that subject to the award of any contract, any bidder can appeal an award subject to it being done in the specified form and manner. “NPTAB is not in receipt of any appeal to its award from any bidder. And were there to be an appeal, it will be dealt with in the prescribed manner consistent with the Law,” it informed.
NPTAB evaluation committees have been slated before for questionable selections including for the construction of schools.
However, many bidders have also said that they would not waste time to appeal bids because as they get nowhere and they could be discriminated against in future tenders.
In July of this year and amid much criticism, the PPC invited aggrieved bidders of awards of any government contract to lodge a formal complaint, so as to trigger an administrative review.
The PPC has been accused of not acting on several complaints placed before the commission.
