The Public Procurement Commission (PPC) has rejected a complaint by Colin Oswald Mohamed over the award of a $1m contract for the preparation of financial statements for the Guyana Wildlife Conservation and Management Commission (GWCMC) and it also found that neither of the two bidders had complied with one of the mandatory evaluation criteria.
Mohamed, trading under the name of C.O.M. Chartered Accountants had complained to the PPC that the contract was improperly awarded by the GWCMC to Zoe Perissos Business Services. He had contended that on July 12th, 2024, the day of the opening of the bids for the contract there were only two bids and he had been assured that he had won the contract as Zoe Perissos Business Services did not have a current business registration.
He told the PPC that between July 12th, 2024 and September 3rd, 2024 he made several enquiries with the GWCMC to no avail. He later found out that Zoe Perissos Business Services had won the award.
During the investigation by the PPC, the GWCMC said it had been mistaken when it that Zoe Perissos Business Services had not submitted a valid business registration.
C.O.M. Chartered Accountants bid $1.2m for the contract while Zoe Perissos Business Services bid $1m.
In its findings, the PPC said that Mohamed’s allegation that the awarded tenderer did not submit a valid business registration as required was not borne out on the record.
It added that the procuring entity, GWCMC erroneously required the complainant to submit a NIS compliance certificate since the business was registered within “the last year”. The complainant was therefore required by the Evaluation Criteria to submit instead a copy of the NIS registration for the business, in order to satisfy that criterion No. 2. This ground alone however would not have affected the final award.
“Strictly on the record, neither tenderer satisfied the Evaluation Criteria, to wit, No. 6 thereof, and therefore neither properly fell to be considered for financial assessment and or to be awarded the contract. However, there was no prejudice in the circumstances”, the PPC said.
Evaluation criteria No.6 required a completed and signed bid securing form.
Having not found any irregularity in the non-award to the complainant, the PPC said that no remedial recommendation and or action to his benefit flows.
The PPC added that the procuring entity applied the correct procurement method, but only obtained two instead of the statutorily required three quotations in accordance with S. 27(2) of the Procurement Act, Cap. 73:05, despite solicitation by way of public advertisement.
In the circumstances, the commission made several recommendations including that an amendment ought to be effected to Section 27 of the Procurement Act, Cap. 73:05 to permit flexibility to adapt to market conditions in obtaining quotations in the Request for Quotations (RFQ) method of procurement.
It also said that when the timeframe, “in the last year” is used in bidding solicitation documents, it ought to be defined from an operative date. For example, “within the last year of the date of bid opening”.
Further, the method of procurement to be used should be clearly stated at the solicitation stage.
Further, the PPC said that procuring entities must be meticulous in their examination of submitted quotations to ensure satisfaction with the Evaluation Criteria.
Procuring entities must also take particular care in ensuring statutory compliance with the applicable tendering method and care in the crafting of Evaluation Reports.
The summary of findings was adopted at a meeting of the commission held on February 13th, 2025.
