By Donald Rodney
Part 3B – language and discretion (Contd)
This Part 3B and the two Parts following, will deal with discretion authorized by the Act for NPTAB to carry out its work.
Transparency blackout
It was stated on the GDF wharf project (at Appendix B of the Findings) that any bidder whose bid is less than 80% of the government’s estimate will be considered non-responsive. It is doubtful that this ‘criteria’ – for such it appears to be – would pass a test of objectivity, if only because the 80% threshold is verifiable only by government. However the successful bidder being one of two bidders below the threshold by the classification of NPTAB itself, in a series of stunning moves, was mutated from being non-responsive to responsive, offered an increased “corrected” tender amount, and deemed to be successful under the subjective and muddled evaluation by NPTAB already narrated, and awarded a contract; all under a tactical move whereby up to the time of PPC first enquiring, the award was not publicized as it should have been (see Findings, paragraphs 72 to 83) so plunging other bidders, PPC and the public, into transparency ‘blackout’. Also according to the Findings, NPTAB articulated that for tenders found non-responsive generally, discretion may be “shown in extreme circumstances” (paragraphs 26 and 41). No statement was offered as to how such an authority arises or how it promotes fairness and transparency.