The contentious $865 million Belle Vue, West Bank Demerara, Pump Station contract award to Tepui Group was flawed, as not only should the company have been disqualified for not meeting the bidding criteria but the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) erred when it lumped two other contracts to the award, former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran says.
He explained that from his analysis, “there has been a violation of the Procurement Act as regards the award of the contract for the construction of sluice/pump station at Belle View as well as the other two pump stations at Meten-Meer-Zorg and Jimbo. As regards the Belle Vue pump station, the system appeared to have been manipulated to facilitate the award of the contract to Tepui Group Inc,” Goolsarran told the Sunday Stabroek.
According to the bidding documents for the project which were opened on June 27 this year, and seen by the Sunday Stabroek, the project was for a pump station at Belle Vue on the West Bank of Demerara. The engineer’s estimate was also for that project alone, so NPTAB still has to explain how three awards were handed out from among the same bidders when it was not a project divided into lots.
Bidders had been asked to “Submit one (1) original (in paper) and 2 electronic copies (flash drive only) with an exact PDF version of the paper tender. (It is the responsibility of the bidder to ensure that the PDF file is accessible and readable.) Ensure the envelopes of the original (in paper) and the 2 electronic copies are identically labelled. The 2 electronic copies (flash drive) should be placed in a smaller envelope and properly affixed to the original paper submission.”
The bids were to be opened in the presence of those bidders or their representatives who chose to attend an opening planned for Tuesday at 09:00. hours on June 13, in the NPTAB boardroom. However, the board’s records show the bids were opened on June 27.
Erred
“The NPTAB erred when it stated that… three mentioned contracts were awarded on the basis of the bidders being the lowest, second lowest and third lowest responsive bids. It is not clear which bidder the Committee considered to be the lowest evaluated bid in relation to the Belle Vue pump station. In any event, Tepui’s bid should have been rejected in accordance with Section 39(5) (a) since it did not have the requisite experience,” Goolsarran explain-ed.
“The advertisement of May 2023 solicited bids for four sets of works: (i) construction of pump station at Meten-Meer-Zorg; (ii) construction of sluice/ pump station at Belle Vue; (iii) construction of sluice/ pump station at Poudero-yen; and (iv) construction of pump station at Jimbo. Each of these had its own Engineer’s Estimate and attracted separate bids of varying amounts. It follows that the evaluation of the bids for each of these works should have been undertaken separately to arrive at the lowest evaluated tenders,” he added.
Goolsarran opined that the Evaluation Committee ought not to evaluate the bids for one set of works but apply the results to the others works, notwithstanding that the works may be similar in nature and complexity. “In this case, bids for the construction of the sluice/pump station at Belle Vue”, he said.
“In fact, there is no support in the Procurement Act for such an approach. The Act is also clear that only the lowest evaluated bid is to be awarded the contract. It is only when the lowest evaluated bidder fails to demonstrate his/her qualifications, if requested to do so, that the Commit-tee will determine which of the remaining tenders is the second lowest evaluated tender for the purpose of the award of the contract. This is provided for under Section 39(9) of the Act,” he pointed out.
Member of Parliament, David Patterson, has asked the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) to investigate whether the award of the contract was above board.
Patterson contended that the contractor, Tepui Group Inc., was not eligible for the award since it does not have the requisite experience stipulated in the bid documents, that is, successful completion of projects similar in nature and size within the last three years. Tepui Group was formed in August 2022.
The PPC has since replied to him informing that an investigation would be launched.
No mention
In response to a public advertisement last May for the construction of the sluice and pump station at Belle Vue, there were 26 bids. The highest bidder was Nabi Construction Inc. with a bid price of $1,181, 867,183 while the lowest bidder was Gavco Con-struction & Supplies Inc. with a bid price of $740,584,800. Tepui Group’s bid was $865,543,500. Seventeen other bidders had bid prices lower than that of Tepui. The Engineer’s Estimate was $779,198,584.
Included in the advertisement were requests for the submission of bids for three other pump stations at Meten-Meer-Zorg and Pouderoyen in Region Three, and Jimbo at Gove, East Bank Demerara. These attracted 27, 23, and 29 bids, respectively, while the Engineer’s Estimates were $918,231,386; $945,179,772; and $865,182,752.
Following Patterson’s disclosure of the letter to the PPC, the NPTAB issued a statement defending the award, contending that: (i) 13 of the 26 bids were deemed non-responsive and were therefore not considered; (ii) the lowest and second lowest responsive bidders were awarded the contracts for the construction of the pump stations at Meten-Meer-Zorg and Jimbo, respectively; and (iii) Tepui was the third lowest responsive bidder and was awarded the contract for the construction of the pump station at Belle Vue.
Goolsarran pointed out that there was, however, no mention of the Pouderoyen pump station, and “it would be of interest to learn who was awarded the contract and the basis for doing so.”
“ Was it awarded to the fourth lowest responsive bidder from the tenders received in relation to the Belle View pump station? “ he questioned.
The former Auditor General referred to the laws of this country, as he highlighted the process that should have been taken.
“Section 39(4)(c) of the Procurement Act provides for the Evaluation Committee to consider a tender as responsive only if it conforms to the requirements set forth in the tender documents. Minor deviations do not affect the responsiveness of the tender if they do not materially alter or depart from the characteristics, terms, conditions and other requirements set forth in the solicitation documents or if the tender contains errors or over sights that are capable of being corrected without touching on the substance of the tender. It would therefore also be of interest to learn who the 13 bidders are, and the grounds for the Committee’s assessment that their bids were non-responsive,” he noted.
“That apart, there is a distinction between lowest responsive bid and lowest evaluated bid. The lowest responsive bid is the lowest bid after setting aside bids that are not considered responsive, having regard to the requirements set forth in the bidding documents. On the other hand, by Section 39(2), in the evaluation of all tenders, the Evaluation Committee is required to use only the evaluation criteria outlined in the tender documents to determine which tenderer has submitted the lowest evaluated tender. Section 39(6) (a) also requires all evaluation criteria in addition to price to be quantified in monetary terms. The contract is to be awarded to the lowest evaluated tenderer,” he added.
Observers have pointed out that bidders at procurement fora have consistently complained about the award process.
