EVALUATION

Sorry for coming on board late!

I must admit that this is a trick situation and we must acknowledge also that do happen – like the case we have now!

Having gone through submissions of the previous contributors, I learned (I stand to be corrected) most of them if not all they have treated the case at hand as either “correction of error” or “clarification issues”. My submission will focus on these two in relation to the situation.

To me the situation is neither “correction of error” no “clarifications”.

Rutaihwa wrote

“1. Since the quantity and amount is there means the rate also is there by dividing amount and QUANTITY by doing so you are not changing anything”.

The result of what is being suggested by Rataihwa is a Unit Price which legally should be quoted by the respective bidders. Is this a correction of error as per respective Clause of ITB and as per R90(11)/97/2005 which states that “Notwithstanding sub-regulation (6) PE shall correct purely arithmetical errors that are discovered during the examination of tenders …….” If we adopt this approach will this be construed as we are suggesting unit price for bidder which he did not contemplate and will it be accepted? I believe by virtual of the respective Clause ITB [Correction of Arithmetical Errors] the situation cannot be mended by correction of error as it will be contravening the respective clause.

CGM-''Ng'wigi'' wrote,

“26.1 To assist in the examination, evaluation, and comparison of bids and post-qualifications of Bidders, the Procuring Entity may, at its discretion, ask any Bidder for clarification of its bid including breakdown of prices. Any clarification submitted by a Bidder that is not in response to a request by the Procuring Entity shall not be considered”.

I doubt if this can be treated as issue to seek clarification from the bidder – if so what kind of clarification should PE seek?
The clause referenced by CGM [bidder’s breakdown of prices] caters for unbalanced rates/front loading of bid to demonstrate the internal consistency of the prices with construction methods and schedule proposed.

To my view, what makes difficult for the situation at hand not to be corrected as a “correction of arithmetical errors” is the ITB Clause relating to Bid Prices.

The typical clause states “The Bidder shall fill in rates and prices for all items of the Works described in the Bill of Quantities. Items for which no rate or price is entered by the Bidder will not be paid for by the Procuring Entity when executed and shall be deemed covered by the other rates and prices in the Bill of quantities”.

Referring situation under discussion, the price for executing item of the works described in the BoQ is quoted – one can conclude that the clause has been complied – as the price for executing the item of the work has be quoted by the bidder.

From the above, I would say that the evaluation should continue without correcting or seeking clarification from the bidder. However, in the later stage [Contract Execution] if the bidder emerge the winner the challenge will be “what if the variation order is to be issued in the respective item – what will be rates will be applied in paying such variation? Will this limit the client the unilateral right to issue variation because of dilemma of the unit rate to be used?

What is your take?